AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.N. DESHMUKH, J
(1) This application is filed for quashing of First Information Report No. 165/2013 registered by Police Station, Gadge Nagar, Amravati for the
offences punishable under Sections 307, 363, 294, 504, 506(B), 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 3 and 25 of Indian Arms Act, 1955.
(2) On 12/6/2013 by issuing notice, this Court directed respondent no.1 not to initiate coercive action against applicant and by further order dated
13/8/2013, respondent no.1 was directed to stay proceedings in the present crime. On 16/7/2018, Shri Bhise, learned Counsel for applicant, made a
statement on instructions that chargeÂsheet in this crime is filed against coÂaccused nos.2 and 3 only and in view of interim order dated 13/8/2013, no
chargeÂsheet is filed against applicant.
(3) It is the case of applicant that alleged incident took place on 6/5/2013 in Golden Kids High School, Amravati where he is working as Head Master.
According to applicant, he has worked in the School since 25 years though he is working as Head Master for four years prior to alleged incident.
(4) According to respondent no.2/complainant, on 6/5/2013 at about 10.45 a.m. when he visited applicant's School to make enquiry for admission of his
son in VIII Standard, two young boys, aged about 20Â25 years, caught hold of him and on assaulting him, abused him on caste basis, upon which he
lodged report against applicant and two unknown persons and Crime No. 165/2013 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections
307, 363, 294, 504, 506(B), 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 3 and 25 of Indian Arms Act, 1955.    .
(5) Shri Bhise, learned Counsel for applicant, submits that from the contents of report, no case is made out against applicant and respondent
no.2/complainant being active member of parentsÂteachers' association had grudge against applicant, who is Head Master of the School, on various
counts and has, therefore, falsely implicated him. It is contended that even otherwise, according to report, involvement is of two unknown persons and
according to his instructions, chargeÂsheet against them is already filed before competent Court. It is, therefore, prayed that application be allowed.
(6) Nobody appears for respondent no.2 in spite of opportunity granted earlier. However, respondent no.2 has placed on record written submissions
contending that when he visited School for making enquiry for admission of his son, two unknown persons caught hold of him and on manhandling him,
took him to the chamber of applicant by continuously beating him. It is specifically submitted that said two unknown persons arrived on the spot by one
white coloured car. It is also contended that as verbal abuses pertaining to his caste were hurled upon him in a public place, relevant provisions of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are attracted as at that time there were various staff members and other
persons present in the School premises. It is further submitted that though on the day of incident, applicant was stated to be on leave, he was present
in the School premises and hurled abuses to him and since there is clear evidence about applicant's involvement, application be rejected.
(7) In the background of submissions, perusal of first information report would reveal that on 6/5/2013, respondent no.2 visited applicant's School at
10.45 a.m. to make enquiry for admission of his son in VIII Standard and while he was returning back from the premises, two boys, aged 20Â25 years
caught hold of collar of his shirt and manhandled him and in that situation, brought him to the chamber of Head Master where he was alleged to be
abused on caste basis and thereafter was again manhandled by fist and kick blows. It is further alleged that out of said two persons, one person was
wearing jean and was armed with a countrymade revolver, who, on the point of revolver, extended threats to respondent no.2 disclosing his name as
Abhijeet and saying that respondent no.2 being member of parentsÂteachers' Association, is causing disturbance in School administration and was
extended threats not to continue such acts. As per further report, both of them thereafter brought respondent no.2 out of premises and left the spot
along with applicant in a white coloured car. Â It is stated that applicant no.1 was driving the car.
(8) In view of specific contents in the report about applicant driving car, when the submissions, which are placed on record by respondent no.2 are
perused, there is no mention of applicant having been present in the car muchless he was driving the same as according to the submissions advanced,
on the day of incident, after two young persons manhandled respondent no.2, they left in the car. Submissions are silent about presence of applicant in
the car as Driver. In fact, in the submissions it is stated that coÂaccused after manhandling respondent no.2 took him to the chamber of applicant,
who was Head Master. As such, first information report does not reveal any role assigned to applicant.
(9) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1 has made available case diary wherefrom it is found that chargeÂsheet in this crime
came to be filed against two coÂaccused. Even in the report, there is repeated reference to two boys only, aged about 20Â25 years, whom overt act
is attributed as aforesaid and though in the report, applicant is stated to be present in one white car and had raised shouts abusing respondent no.2,
there is nothing in the chargeÂsheet to establish said contention as on perusal of same, it is material to note that though statements of ten witnesses
are filed with the chargeÂsheet, who are relied by prosecution, none of them implicates applicant. According to statement of Santosh Jhaskar, he
learnt about the incident and as such, is not an eye witness.
Even otherwise, what he learnt is about involvement of two boys assaulting respondent no.2 and extending threats to him on the point of countryÂ‐
made revolver. Similarly, according to statement of Shyam Padhye, involvement is again of two boys taking out complainant out of School premises
from the main gate. Though the statement of Shrikant Rathi finds place in the case diary, he is not cited as a witness. His statement is again involving
two boys only and in fact, as per his statement, one of them is son of applicant. As per statements of Smita Athalye, Lalita Nehare and Subhangi
Azame, no incident took place on 6/5/2013 when they were on duty on that day during day time. In fact, according to Smita Athalye, she was having
charge of post of Head Master and as such, she was present in the Office of Head Master as on that day, result of examination of IX Standard was
declared. As such, contents of report of respondent no.2 about his being taken by coÂaccused to the chamber of Head Master are falsified. Even
otherwise, first information report does not implicate applicant to have in any manner abused complainant on caste basis or manhandled him or
assaulted him or extended threats to him in any manner. In fact, the communication sent by the Authorities of Lady Yashodabai Ladies Club,
Amravati, which is a public trust running Primary and High School where applicant was posted as Head Master of High School on the day of incident,
to the Investigating Officer would reveal that in fact complainant's sons were studying in the same School and complainant at the time of obtaining
admission of his sons had accepted terms and conditions. However, he owed amount of Rs.17,600/Â towards tuition fee in respect of his son Swaraj
in 2013Â14. Similarly, even in respect of his second son, namely, Shreyas, complainant owed amount of Rs.15,000/Â to the School and taking lenient
view, School Authorities had issued School Leaving Certificate of his second son after declaring his results while he was in VII Standard and no
action is taken against any of his sons. According to communication issued by Society to Investigating Officer, total amount which complainant
owed to School was Rs.43,170/Â. However, without making such payment, it is found that respondent no.2 indulged in making false allegations and as
already stated above, on investigation, chargeÂsheet is already filed against other coÂaccused.
(10) In the background of facts as aforesaid, question that would be required to be considered is as to whether facts of the present case justify
warranting invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure or not. We may gainfully refer to the observations of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604), which read thus :
“108.  In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law
enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraÂordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code, which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein
such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of
myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the First InformationReport 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.
(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report andother materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by Police Officers under Section 151(1) of the Code, except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR orcomplaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute acognizable offence, but constitute only a nonÂcognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a Police Officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint areso 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.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any ofthe provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of 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.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attendedwith malafide 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.â€
(11) Keeping in mind guidelines as aforesaid and contents of first information report, we are of the view that even if allegations in the first information
report taken at their face value are accepted to be true and correct, they do not prima facie constitute commission of offence. We, therefore, find that
present case would fall within clause (1) of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
(12) It will also be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta and others (2009) 1 SCC
516, which read thus :
“15. Propositions of law which emerge from the said decisions are :
(1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherentjurisdiction to quash a criminal proceedings and, in particular, a first information report
unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence.
(2) For the said purpose, the Court, save and except in veryexceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence.
(3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If theallegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the Court shall not go
beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus.
(4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same byitself may not be ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to
continue.â€
(13) In view of facts involved in the application and law as aforesaid, the criminal application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (A) thereof. No
order as to costs.