Satyanarayan Bisanlal Agarwal vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhangale A.P., J.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. None appears for respondent No. 2. Being aggrieved by order dated 16.6.2004 rejecting "B" summary submitted by respondent No. 2 in connection with FIR No. 3040/03, the applicant has approached this Court invoking its inherent powers vested u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Applicant is owner of field survey number 11 situated at mouza Bajitpur, Tahsil Achalpur, District Amravati admeasuring 11.27 acres. An alluvial land admeasuring 2.32 acres was added in applicant''s field as per the order dated 19.8.1954 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Achalpur and revenue entry to that effect has also been taken. Since then the applicant is owner and is in possession of field having area of 14.19 acres. In the year 1962-63 one Gotuji Keraji Jamnerkar (father-in-law of respondent No. 3) had tried to encroach upon the field of the applicant due to which applicant''s father filed a complaint against said Gotuji before the Naib Tahsildar. The Naib Tahsildar vide order dated 1.10.1965 directed said Gotuji to remove encroachment within seven days and imposed fine of Rs. 100/-. Appeal filed by Gotuji came to be dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Achalpur vide order dated 20.12.1965. Thereafter Gotuji filed Civil Suit bearing No. 689 of 1968 which was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 31.7.1970. Appeal filed before the District Judge was dismissed and Second Appeal No. 417 of 1972 filed before this Court was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 19.11.1996. It appears that applicant Satyanarayan has filed Civil Suit bearing No. 350 of 1987 regarding alluvial land and the same is pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati.

Respondent No. 3 lodged report on 23.9.2003 against the applicant alleging that on 22.9.2003 applicant and his associates came to her field. At that time she was doing work in field. Applicant then, it is alleged, abused complainant in filthy language in the name of caste (she belongs to "Mahar" caste) and threatened her of dire consequences if her husband entered the field. Respondent No. 3 lodged report for the offence punishable u/s 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Respondent No. 1 registered the said offence against the applicant and took up the matter for investigation. During investigation statements of 12/13 concerned persons were recorded. Respondent No. 1 found that the report lodged by respondent No. 3 was false and therefore, filed "B" summary. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, however, rejected "B" summary and hence, the present application.

Learned Counsel for the applicant contends that the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have taken into consideration the history of litigation between the parties and mala fide intention of respondent No. 3. He submits that after detailed investigation, respondent No. 1 decided to file "B" summary which should have been accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order. None appears for respondent No. 3.

This Court in (Haribhau Nabaji Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra)1, reported in 2001(Supp.) Bom.C.R. 566(A.B.) : 2001(2) Mh.L.J. 500 has dealt with different summaries and their scope with reference to subclause (5) of Clause 24 of the Criminal Manual issued by the High Court. Paragraph 7 of the judgment reads thus :

Much reliance was sought to be placed on the order of grant of "A" summary by the Additional Sessions Judge in support of the contention that the same discloses good faith on the part of the petitioner in lodging the said report suspecting the respondent No. 2 as having involved in the murder of Ranba. It was contended that since "A" summary means incident is true but the evidence could not be collected by the police, the petitioner could not be blamed for the lapse on the part of the police authorities in collecting the said report. Indeed, the learned Sessions Judge while referring to the orders of grant of "A" summary and "B" summary has referred to the meaning of those expressions. Accord gly, grant of "B" summary is stated to mean that the report lodged was false whereas "A" summary is stated to imply that the incident is true but the evidence could not be collected. It is, however, not known as to from where the learned Sessions Judge could derive the said meaning of said summary orders. The Criminal Manual issued by our High Court in the Clause 24 of Chapter 1 makes detail reference to such summary orders. Subclause (5) of Clause 24 reads thus :

(5) The Criminal cases should be classified as follows :-

Class "A" cases. - The cases which are (i) TRUE and (ii) wherein an accused is tried and in the absence of conclusive evidence, is acquitted.

Class "B" cases, - Wherein no offence has been committed at all cither by the accused or by any one else, but wherein the complaint is found to be "false and maliciously false.

Applicant has filed copy of roznama maintained in Regular Civil Suit No. 350 of 1987 which shows that applicant (plaintiff therein) was present before the Court on 22.9.2005. He has also filed acknowledgment issued by P.A. to Collector, Amravati dated 22.9.2003 that on that day applicant had submitted certain documents to the Collector regarding alluvial land. The alleged incident took place in an agricultural land situated at mourn Nirulgangamai around 5.50 p.m. which is said to he located at a long distance from Amravati. There is no reason to disbelieve entry in roznama and acknowledgment issued by the Collectorate which fortify the presence of applicant at Amravati. Considering the age of the applicant and long distance between the two places, it cannot be believed that applicant would reach Nirulgangai on the same day by 5.50 p.m. Statements of the witnesses show that even though they were present whole day in and around the agricultural field of respondent No. 3, at no point of time, they saw the applicant or his associates there. In that view of the matter, it would be futile to continue prosecution against the applicant on the basis of FIR No. 3040/03 registered with Police Station, Asegaon. Hence, impugned order dated 16.6.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur is hereby quashed and set aside. Proceedings arising out of FIR No. 3040/03 registered with Police Station, Asegaon are hereby quashed and set aside. Application disposed of accordingly.