1 CR.APL NO.4674/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4674/2010 1. Meena w/o Devidas Nagre, Age 31 years, Occu: Household, r/o Nagre Wasti, Phulambri, Dist. Aurangabad. 2. Mangal w/o Dattu Nagre, Age 42 years, Occu: Household, r/o Nagre Wasti, Phulambri, Dist. Aurangabad. 3. Sharda w/o Eknath Nagre, Age 40 years, Occu: Household, r/o Nagre Wasti, Phulambri, Dist. Aurangabad. 4. Dhrupadabai @ Shraddha w/o Sambhaji Nagre, Age 40 years, Occu:Household, r/o Nagre Wasti, Phulambri, Dist. Aurangabad. 5. Parwati w/o Karbhari Nagre, Age: 75 yrs. Occu: Household, r/o. Nagre Wasti, Phulambri, Dist. Aurangabad. 6. Tarabai w/o Bhagwan Nagre, Age: 30 yrs. Occu: Household, r/o. Nagre Wasti, Phulambri, Dist. Aurangabad. 7. Rukhminibai w/o Nagu Nagre, Age: 42 yrs. Occu: Household, r/o Nagre Wasti, Phulambri, Dist. Aurangabad. 2 CR.APL NO.4674/2010 8. Anil s/o Eknath Nagre, Age: 22 yrs. Occu: Agri., r/o. Nagre Wasti, Phulambri, Dist. Aurangabad. 9. Ashok s/o Kundlik Nagre, Age: 37 yrs., Occu: Agri., r/o. Nagre Wasti, Phulambri, Dist. Aurangabad. 10. Nagorao @ Nagu s/o Pundalik Nagre, Age: 52 yrs. Occu: Agri., r/o Nagre Wasti, Phulambri, Dist. Aurangabad. ...APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Phulambri Police Station, Tq. Phulambri, Dist. Aurangabad. 2. Sahebrao s/o Haribhau Gangawane, Age: 33 yrs. Occ. Agri., r/o Phulambri, Tq. Phulambri, Dist. Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr.A.N.Nagargoje, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. V.H.Dighe, APP for State. Mr. S.G.Magre, Adv., for respondent no.2. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:3-3-2011 *** PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel. Rule, made returnable and heard forthwith, with the consent of Counsel for the parties. 3 CR.APL NO.4674/2010 2. An application in terms of Section 482 and 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code is moved by the original accused/applicants, seeking quashment of proceedings vide Crime No.I-108/2010, dt.1.11.2010, registered at Phulambri Police Station, to the extent of offense punishable under Section 3(i) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short SC & SC Act, 1989). Elaborate submissions from both the learned Counsel illustrate, the rival groups are known to each other. 3. The controversy revolves to agricultural land Gat No.326 in the village wherein the respondent (original complainant) submits that two Courts have decided in his favour while the applicants herein assert that they are in possession of the property and the controversy between the groups is pending 2000, learned Counsel for the applicant submits that Police authorities, by application moved by Sambhaji Nagare, are well informed on 22.11.2008/22.11.2000, 20.11.2008, 2.12.2008, 12.12.2008, 12.12.2008, 23.12.2008 of misdeeds of Respondent no.2.. It is submitted, based on such representation dt.23.12.2008, a chapter case is initiated against the respondent and his family members. In an event of clash, dt.27.5.2009, 4 CR.APL NO.4674/2010 the applicants have furnished vehicle number to the Police authorities, there are cross complaints between the parties. 4. Learned Counsel also submits that the caste of respondent no.2 as belonging to Scheduled Caste is not established for which a validation certificate is required to be obtained from the competent authorities and without such verification and confirmation, respondent no.2 ( complainant) need not brand, to be of said caste, for taking advantage and protection of SC and ST Act, 1989. He submits that the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Ashabai Machindra Adhagale V. State of Maharashtra and others ( 2009 AIR SCW 1605), will not be available to be coined in favour of respondent no.2, as the matter pertains to affairs in the State of Bihar where there may not be applicability of Maharashtra Schedule Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (Mah. Act No.XXIII of 2001) ( for short Maharashtra SC ST Caste Certificate Act, 2001). 5. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits, reading the FIR of respondent no.2 as a whole itis scanty to imply Section 3(i)(x) of SC 5 CR.APL NO.4674/2010 and SC Act, 1989. Counsel submits that the life of the applicants and others in the village have been made miserable by respondent no.2 and his family members as they are using the said Act as a tool to harass, intimidate and pressurize the applicants. Several instances are quoted in context to above applications. 6. For the purpose of quashment of proceedings in terms of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the parameters are distinct, viz: (a) to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order this Code, or (b) to prevent abuse of the process of any court or, (c) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 7. In the matter of Inder Mohan Goswami & Another vs State Of Uttaranchal & Others ( (2008) 1 SCC (Cri.) 259) the three Hon'ble Judges of the Apex Court have observed as under: " The powers possessed by the High Court under section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy; more so, 6 CR.APL NO.4674/2010 when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage." 8. The parameters for invoking Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure are also highlighted in State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal ( 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335), specifying seven categories: "(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investi-gation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against 7 CR.APL NO.4674/2010 the accused; (d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institu- tion and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. " 9. In the matter of V.Y.Jose and another V. State of Gujarat and another ( (2009) 3 SCC 78) d the Hon'ble Lordships of Supreme Court have reiterated the principles to invoke powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In 8 CR.APL NO.4674/2010 the matter of M.Narayandas Vs. State of Karnataka and others ( (2003) 11 SCC 251) the Hon'ble Lordships of the Apex Court have held, the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. must be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The Court cannot inquire about reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in FIR. The Court has also no power to inquire whether the allegations are likely to be established or not. This was in the light of the observations of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra). 10. In the context with the above settled legal position, let us revert to the facts in the present case. As referred earlier, the parties are litigating since long concerning agricultural field or its cultivation which imply that they are known to each other, even, applicants have expressed apprehension by the application of 2010 (Page No.40) to be roped based on caste, which necessarily generates a primary impression that the caste of the complainant (respondent no.2 ) was known to the applicants. So, no shelter or umbrella of innocuous character that the caste either is not referred or caste certificate of the respondent no.2 is not obtained is available to be accelerated at the behest and for the applicants. The requirement of caste 9 CR.APL NO.4674/2010 certificates is for availing benefits in employment and at educational institutions, where admissions are permissible on priority to candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe categories. 11. The second limb of the submission that the caste allegations are hurled by only two ladies, namely, Tarabai, applicant No.6 and Meena, applicant no.1, even if is considered, however, as stated earlier, the act was conjointly committed by all the applicants forming an unlawful assembly wherein other member of such assembly is bound to answer the charge. This is so clear reading Section 8 of SC & ST Act which conceives a presumption: "8. PRESUMPTION AS TO OFFENCES:- In a prosecution for offece under this Chapter, if it is proved that - (a) the accused rendered any financial assistance to a person accused of or reasonably suspected of, committing, an offence under this Chapter, the Special Court shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that such person had abetted the offence; (b) a group of persons committed an offence under this Chapter and if it is proved that the offence committed was a sequel to any existing dispute regarding land or any other matter, it shall be presumed that the offence was committed in furtherance of the common intention or in prosecution of the common object." 10 CR.APL NO.4674/2010 12. That apart, the incident dt.1.11.2010 is virtually not disputed as there is a cross complaint initiated by the applicants branch vide Crime No.109/2010 at 3.30 p.m. by Sambhaji Nagare. The events, incidently, match to the events, subject of present prosecution, indicated at page no.18 vide FIR No.108/2010. During the course of submission, learned Counsel for respondent no.2, original complainant also pondered upon injury certificate of Uttam Gangawane and Deepak Dabhade. This aspect cannot be ignored. 13. Considering the legal position referred above, and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Ashabai, mentioning of caste of either the accused or the complainant is not mandatorily required, report need not be condemned. 14. Survey of above events illustrate that the quashment sought or the protection in terms of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. sought is not warranted to be showered. The application lacks merit, dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim protection dt.2nd Dec.,2010, is extended upto 18th March, 2011. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/4674-10crapl