1 CR.APL.NO.1841/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1841 OF 2011 Ramnarayan Motilal Nawandar, Age 55 years, Occu: Agri. & Business, r/o. Akhilesh Nagar, Gangapur, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad. ...APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Investigation Officer, Gangapur Police Station, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad. 2. Ashok Kacharu Khajekar, Age 38 years, Occu: Corporator, r/o. Opposite Dr.Deokar's House, Near Bus Stand, Gangapur, Tq.Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. Ravindra V.Gore, Advocate, for the appellant. Smt. S.D.Shelke, APP for respondent no.1. Shri Yuvraj V.Kakade, Adv., for respondent no.2. ... CORAM: A.H.JOSHI & A.R.JOSHI, JJ. Date: SEPT.,28th, 2011 *** 2 CR.APL.NO.1841/2011 JUDGMENT: (PER A.H.JOSHI, J.) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by Consent. 2. Ramnarayan Motilal Nawandar, an accused, named in Crime No.II-09/2011 registered with Gangapur Police Station, is the applicant. The offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 504, 506 of IPC is the matter leading to registration of the offence. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Perused the record. 5. Petitioner's emphasis for quashing is on following point:- (a) The text of the complaint contains the version which, according to the petitioner, falls in the mischief to be remedied in view of the test prescribed in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others (supra), in paragraph no.108 and, in particular, test No.5, which reads as under: "(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on 3 CR.APL.NO.1841/2011 the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;" 6. In substance, the contention is as follows:- (i) The version contained in the complaint is absurd. (ii) No prudent man can reach just conclusion as to probability of version contained in the complaint to be a reality. 7. Perused the judgments relied upon by the learned Advocates, viz: (1) AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 604 (1) (State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others) (2) 2011(1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 625 (Suryakanta Ramesh Ajmera (Dr.) vs. State of Maharashtra and others) 8. In order to test as to whether the version contained in the complaint withstands what learned Advocate has argued, it would be useful to refer to the relevant text contained in the statement on which FIR has been registered. English translation of relevant text thereof in which, according to the petitioner, the commission of offence has been described, reads 4 CR.APL.NO.1841/2011 as under: " I am resident of above mentioned address and work as Coolie. ... ... Since I had unpaid dues of Rs. 4660.00 towards my Coolie charges recoverable from Ramnarayan Motilal Nawandar, which had remained unpaid though I used to demand the same time and again. Since there was no written entry/record about the same, he was avoiding to make payment. ... ... ... ... ..... ... ... Enraged due to said demand, the accused abused me over my caste, etc. " 9. According to applicant, said version comes in the category of being described as `absurd', or `unworthy of reliance whatsoever', on the ground that the complainant is an elected Councilor of Gangapur Municipal Council, and his being a "Coolie" at present, and as a Coolie, having left un-recovered dues of remuneration of the large sum of Rs.4660/-. 10. With reference to status of complainant as a Councilor, it is argued that:- 5 CR.APL.NO.1841/2011 It is unconscionable and un-believable that a sitting Councilor may be leading the life as a Coolie for livelihood and, has dues of Rs. 4660/- recoverable from the petitioner, also sounds like tell tale and hence, is farcical and far from worth of belief for a man of ordinary prudence. 11. The petition, thus, is to be decided barely on the points, namely:- (a) Whether the version contained in the complaint is absurd ? (b) Whether the version contained in the complaint that the complainant though was a Coolie would still be continuing as a Coolie and has money to recover from the accused towards remuneration, is believable for a man of ordinary prudence ? 12. The word "absurd" as defined in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary to mean:- "completely ridiculous; not logical and sensible". 6 CR.APL.NO.1841/2011 The word "absurdity" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as under: " The state or quality of being grossly unreasonable; esp., an interpretation that would lead to an unconscionable result, esp. one that the parties or (esp. for the statute) the drafters could not have intended and probably never considered." 13. In so far as the test "no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused", laid down in Bhajan Lal's case (supra), is concerned, with utmost humility, said proposition is potentially of infinite subjectivity. 14. To the petitioner's mind, a Coolie cannot continue to be a Coolie, inspite of being elected as a Councilor in the Municipal Council, which is a hypothesis, incapable of existence. Though this thought can be argued and convincingly, yet it is not necessary that, its existence could be absurd. In our humble view, an elected Councilor's former employment and calling, and even necessity and/or requirement to continue in that calling, and actually doing so, can never be regarded as 7 CR.APL.NO.1841/2011 absurd. 15. Complainant's version that he has money to recover from the accused towards unpaid remuneration, which he has refused to pay, and that the recovery is four years old, would, to somebody's mind, appear absurd, yet it would never be potentially absurd, and capable of being described as untenable, and hence a fiction. 16. These matters cannot be regarded or described to be of such nature that, no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion of existence thereof. As noted earlier, it is a matter of subjectivity and is likely to vary from person to person, although it would be extremely difficult to rule out the possibility of existence of dues of remuneration, and demand thereof by the complainant. 17. A postulate which is a living monument that "Facts are always stranger than fiction", needs to be kept in mind before dismissing any plea as absurd, fictional and untenable. 18. A plea that the story disclosed in the complaint is absurd or that a person of ordinary prudence cannot suppose existence thereof cannot be allowed to operate as a rule of universal application, but may operate as an exception. 8 CR.APL.NO.1841/2011 19. This plea cannot be allowed to be used a device to shut the doors of criminal justice system. We in the justice system ought not usurp to ourselves the function of judging facts before `adjudication', being prey of subjectivity. 20. In these circumstances, the petition, which is based on sheer synthesis than on reality, does not deserve any further indulgence than already granted. 21. Petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.H.JOSHI,J.) ... AGP/1841-11crapl