( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3224 OF 2010 Subhash Sripat Chaudhari APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. R.M. Deshpande, advocate for the applicant. Smt. B.R. Khekale, APP for the respondent/State. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 24th August, 2010] PER COURT : 1. By this application, the applicant seeks directions under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Heard learned counsel and learned A.P.P. The investigation papers were temporarily made available during the course of hearing and have been perused. 3. The alleged incident is said to have occurred on 21st June, 2010. The FIR purports to show that in the relevant morning, the complainant had gone to the agricultural land for the purpose of conducting sowing operation. She was ( 2 ) accompanied by her grandsons. The applicant allegedly obstructed her ploughing operation. He told her that he will not allow her to carry out the sowing operation. He threatened her that she will be cut to pieces if she will enter the said land bearing Gat No. 229/2. She referred the complainant and her grandsons as “Bhiltyanno” knowing that they are members of the tribal community called “Bhill”. 4. It appears that the land Gat No. 229/2 is inferior inam land which was granted in favour of husband of the complainant. Her husband died somewhere in 2004. It appears that the applicant entered into an agreement with the complainant for purchase of the said land. There is civil dispute going on between the parties. The dispute was also raised before the Tahsildar, Parola. It appears that the Tahsildar, Parola, in the proceeding No. 5/2009, carried out certain enquiry. The Tahsildar found that the applicant was in cultivating possession of the said land. In any case, the main dispute is of civil nature. It appears that the complainant did not obtain sale permission as per the terms of the agreement. A copy of the agreement is placed on record vide Exh-B. Though there was agreement of sale without delivery of possession, yet, subsequently another document (Exh-D) was ( 3 ) allegedly executed by the complainant which indicates delivery of possession to the applicant. All said and done, the complaint appears to be outcome of the civil dispute raised and the question to be determined is who had committed the trespass in the land. Learned APP points out that statements of one Nadu and Shriram have been recorded during the investigation. They were employed by the complainant in the relevant morning for the purpose of sowing the land. Their names do not appear in the FIR. Assuming that they were agricultural labours employed by the complainant, yet, only refer to the obstruction caused in the sowing operation. Both of them, however, did not support the allegation that the complainant was abused on the ground of her being member of Scheduled Tribe. They are not supporting the case of complainant about the alleged incident in respect of the offence punishable under section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In this view of the matter, the applicant is entitled to liberty because his arrest is not imminent for the purpose of application and he is likely to be humiliated if he is arrested. 5. For the reasons aforestated, the application is ( 4 ) allowed. The ad-interim relief granted to the applicant is continued and will be operative till filing of the chargesheet. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln3224-10