1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application [APL] No. 152 of 2011 (Kaushalya @ Surekha W/o. Vinayak Margaye and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. A.S. Bhendarkar, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. M.J. Khan, APP for the State/non-applicant no.1. Mr. V.N. Morande, Advocate for non-applicant no.2. CORAM : Prasanna B. Varale, J. DATE : 18 th August, 2011. Heard Mr. A.S. Bhendarkar, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. V. N. Morande, learned counsel for non- applicant no. 2 and Mr. M.J. Khan, learned A.P.P. for the State/non-applicant no.1. By the present application, the applicants are seeking challenge to the order, dated 13/09/2010, passed by learned Special Judge, Gadchiroli, in Special Case No. 6/2009. Brief facts giving rise to the application are as follows : Applicants, who are the land-owners and as there were some disputes about deletion of name of one of the applicants in the 7/12 extract, raised grievance before the revenue authority. It was informed to these applicants to approach Tahsildar for redressal of their grievance. 2 Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants approached the Revenue Officer for redressal of their grievance, but the Revenue Officer paid no heed to them and behaved with them in arrogant manner. The applicants lodged report in Police Station Purada on 07/01/2009. One another report on the same day was lodged at Police Station Purada by non-applicant no.2 i.e. N.S. Kokode, who was discharging his duties as Talathi at village Purada. In the report lodged by non-applicant no.2, it was stated that the applicants visited his office on 06/01/2009 and asked him as to how he has deleted the name of applicant no.3 from the record, in spite of instructions given by his superior officer. It was further stated in the report that the applicants started abusing him and they further abused him on his caste giving threats of life to him. It was further stated in the report that the applicants started causing nuisance in the office and thereby it was not possible for non-applicant no. 2 to discharge his duties. It is further stated in the report that the persons, who were present in the office in relation to their work, tried to intervene and pacify the applicants. In spite of their attempts to intervene, the applicants were not ready to cool down and were abusing non-applicant no.2. The applicants earlier filed petition in this Court for seeking quashment of 3 F.I.R. lodged against them and the same was permitted to withdraw with liberty to file discharge application. The applicants filed an application for discharge before learned Special Judge, Gadchiroli. Learned Sessions Judge on perusal of the record and on hearing the learned counsel, found that there is strong prima-facie material against the applicants and in the result the application is rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicants are before this Court. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the F.I.R. lodged against the applicants is nothing but a outcome of the report lodged by the applicants against non-applicant no.2, as he was not taking necessary steps in respect of the grievance raised by the applicants about deletion of name of applicant no. 2 in the 7/12 extract. Learned counsel further submits that learned Special Judge, Gadchiroli, while deciding the application, failed to consider the material in proper perspective and ultimately it came to be rejected. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in cases of Chandrashekhar Narayan Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra, Mh.L.J. 2004-0-929 and Dhananjay Gopalrao Bahergaonkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2010- EQ-0-1009. 4 Learned counsel for non-applicant no.2 supported the order passed by learned Special Judge, Gadchiroli, and submitted that learned Special Judge has considered the record and material before him properly. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material, I am of the opinion that learned Special Judge has considered all the aspects of the matter in his proper perspective. The report, dated 06/01/2009, lodged by non-applicant no. 2, gives all the details as to how the applicants entered in the office and started abusing to non-applicant no. 2, who was discharging his duties as a public servant. It is also stated that the applicants started abusing and giving threats of life. The applicant no. 2 abused and gave threats to the non-applicant no.2 by raising her footwear. The words and abuses which are stated in the report are surely causing humiliation and insults. It is also not in dispute that the non-applicant no. 2 is belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community. The report further discloses that the independent witnesses, who were present in the office of the non- applicant no.2 in relations to their work, witnessed the incident of abuses and threats given by the applicants to non-applicant no. 2. Not only this, in spite of their attempts to intervene and pacify, the applicants were not paying any 5 heed to them. Learned Special Judge, has considered the material in proper perspective and I find no fault in the order passed. In so far as judgments relied by the learned counsel for the applicants is concerned, in the Judgment Chandrashekhar Joshi Vs. State of Maharahstra, the learned counsel invited my attention to para 12, which reads as follows : "The procedure evolved by the Legislature under r.7 is with an object to eliminate misuse of stringent provisions of the Atrocities Act and, therefore, Legislature intended that offences under the Atrocities Act should be investigated by a senior responsible officer like the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who is specially appointed for this purpose by the state taking into consideration his past experience, sense of ability etc. This Court in the case of Ramnath Sadashiv Koltharkar has already held that R.7 of the Atrocities Rules is mandatory in nature and, therefore, the prosecution is duty-bound to follow the procedure of investigation contemplated under R.7 of the Atrocities Rules and any deviation in this regard by the investigating agency, undoubtedly, would result in vitiating such investigation, since it is de- hors of the procedure contemplated under R.7 of the Atrocities Rules." 6 There cannot be any dispute on the principle that looking to the serious offence of the Atrocities Act, an intention of legislature was to see that this offence should be investigated by senior responsible officer. Though learned counsel for the applicants is raising ground that the investigation was carried in the offences of Atrocities Act by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, he failed to show that the Sub-Divisional Police Officer was lower to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police as required under the provisions of the Act. Learned counsel for the applicants further placed reliance on the judgment in case of Dhananjay Bahergaonkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and another. The judgment is clearly on different facts. In that judgment, this Hon'ble Court considered the aspect that the parties, who were in dispute, arrived at settlement and made a request for compounding the offence. This Court, observing that though the offence under the Atrocities Act is not compoundable, but taking into consideration the fact that the parties have arrived at settlement and to secure ends of justice and to maintain harmony between two sects of the society, passed the said judgment and order in that respect. The judgment is not applicable to the present case. 7 In view of the above mentioned facts, I am of the opinion that no case is made out to exercise the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application is devoid of merits and deserves to be rejected. Application is rejected. JUDGE *sdw