1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3605 OF 2006
Vikas s/o Dattatrya Janjire,
Age 27 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Sirsala, Tq. Sillod,
District Aurangabad ... APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Prayagabai w/o Baburao Dandge,
Age 40 years, Occ. Household,
r/o Sirsala, Tq. Sillod,
District Aurangabad ... RESPONDENTS
.....
Shri A.S. Manorkar, Advocate holding for
Shri S.G. Ladda, Advocate for the applicant
Mrs. R.R. Mane, A.P.P. for respondent No.1.
None for respondent No.2.
.....
CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.
DATED : 27TH JULY, 2009.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Perused. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by
consent of learned respective counsel of the parties, matter is
taken up for final hearing.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:50:14 :::
2
2. The applicant (original accused) has filed the present
application requesting that F.I.R. of C.R. No.II-28/2006 of Police
Station, Ajintha be quashed and set aside.
3. On 21.11.2006, the respondent No.2 (original
complainant) Prayagbai lodged F.I.R. with the Police Station,
Ajintha, alleging that since last two years she is cooking Khichadi
at Primary School, Sirsala under the Daridrya Reshe Khalil Mahila
Magasvargiya Bachat Gat Scheme. She also contended that she
was paid 38 ps. per student as remuneration and the applicant
herein used to deduct 1/4th amount from her bill under the
pretext that the said amount was to be paid as contribution to
the scheme. It is also alleged by respondent No.2 that on
4.10.2006 her husband had been to Panchayat Samiti, Sillod and
on enquiry, he learnt that no such contribution was required to
be paid. Hence, on the next day, the respondent No.2 went to
the school and demanded her bill of Rs.3692/-. Thereupon, the
applicant herein alleged to have demanded an amount of Rs.
1000/-. The respondent No.2 refused to pay the same. It is,
however, alleged that, on her refusal, the applicant abused her
saying that “She is Mahar, is Dedpat and as she is Mahar and
therefore, she is unskilled to cook Khichadi” and accordingly, the
applicant saying so, alleged to have expelled her from the
school.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:50:14 :::
3
4. It is alleged by the respondent No.2 in the F.I.R. that,
she narrated the aforesaid incident to the Sarpanch, President of
the School Committee and the Block Development Officer of
Panchayat Samiti. However, none of the authorities took the
cognizance thereof. Hence, she allegedly lodged the complaint
with Police Station, Ajintha on 15.10.2006 under Crime No.
575/2006. It is further alleged that thereafter on 16.10.2006 the
applicant, with the help of some adamant persons from the
village, put pressure over her and thereby compelled her to
withdraw the said complaint. In the F.I.R., the respondent
specifically called the police to register the offence under the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act against the applicant by re-opening the case. The applicant
submits that, he learnt about the aforesaid complaint and further
submits that, no such incident as contended or otherwise took
place. Hence, the respondent No.2 has lodged the aforesaid
complaint against him. In the circumstances, the applicant
approached to this Court requesting to quash and set aside the
said F.I.R., contending that it does not make out any offence.
5. Heard learned respective counsel for the parties.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
respondent No.2 herein gave a writing on 17.10.2006 i.e. after
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:50:14 :::
4
lodging the complaint on 15.10.2006 in respect of the alleged
incident of 4.10.2006 and thereby withdrew the complaint dated
15.10.2006 and allegations therein and thereafter lodged the
complaint in question on 21.11.2006 arising out of the same
incident and, therefore, same is required to be quashed and set
aside.
7. Mrs. Mane, the learned A.P.P. for respondent No.1
submitted that the applicant has not produced the alleged record
along with the present application and the complaint in question
discloses that it was filed on 21.11.2006 in respect of the
incident dated 4.10.2006 and the said complaint does not reflect
that any earlier complaint dated 15.10.2006 was withdrawn and,
therefore, further submitted that there is no substance in the
contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
8. At the outset, on perusal of the contents of the
complaint/ F.I.R. produced at Exhibit A, it is seen that it is dated
21.11.2006 in respect of the alleged incident dated 4.10.2006
and the contents of the said complaint also reveal that on
16.10.2006 some people from the village brought pressure upon
her and threatened her and compelled her to withdraw the
earlier complaint. However, as contended by the learned
counsel for the applicant, the alleged writing dated 17.10.2006
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:50:14 :::
5
as well as the record regarding the withdrawal of the earlier
complaint have not been produced along with the present
application.
9. Apart from that, it is apparent that there are
allegations in the complaint/ F.I.R. in question in respect of the
charges under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code
and also under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and apparently
there is prima facie case against the applicant, and same are
required to be dealt with in accordance with the law during the
trial.
10. Moreover, it is also reflected from the contents of F.I.R.
that the complainant has given reason for filing the said F.I.R./
complaint at the belated stage.
11. In the circumstances, apparently there does not
appear to be any abuse of the process of the Court by filing the
aforesaid complaint/ F.I.R. and, therefore, there is no necessity to
invoke the inherent powers under section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code.
12. In the result, the present application fails since it bears
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:50:14 :::
6
no substance and it has no merits and, therefore, same stands
dismissed. Interim relief stands vacated and Rule stands
discharged accordingly.
(SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.)
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:50:14 :::