Bombay High Court
Amol Pandurang Bhadake vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 4 July, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:20037-DB
cria-1985.24+
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1985 OF 2024
1) Nandu S/o Namdeo Lokhande,
Age-50 years, Occupation:Service
as Primary teacher,
R/o-Tisgaon, Taluka-Pathardi,
District-Ahmednagar,
2) Walmik S/o Rajaram Garudkar,
Age-54 years, Occupation:Agri.,
R/o-As Above.
...APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station -
Pathardi, District-Ahmednagar,
2) Popat Youvhan Shinde,
Age-40 years, Occupation:Agriculture,
R/o-Tisgaon, Taluka-Pathardi,
District-Ahmednagar.
...RESPONDENTS
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1987 OF 2024
Amol S/o Pandurang Bhadake,
(As per F.I.R., Amol Bhausaheb Bhadake),
Age-35 years, Occupation:Business,
R/o-Tisgaon, Taluka-Pathardi,
District-Ahmednagar.
...APPLICANT
VERSUS
cria-1985.24+
2
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station -
Pathardi, District-Ahmednagar,
2) Popat Youvhan Shinde,
Age-40 years, Occupation:Agriculture,
R/o-Tisgaon, Taluka-Pathardi,
District-Ahmednagar.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Hemantkumar F. Pawar Advocate for Applicants in both the
Applications.
Mr. A.D. Wange, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 in both the
Applications.
Mr. Umakant U. Wagh Advocate for Respondent No.2 in both
the Applications.
...
CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE : 4th JULY, 2025
ORDER [PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] :
1. Both these Applications have been filed, initially for
quashing the First Information Report (for short "the FIR") vide
Crime No. 79 of 2024, registered with Pathardi Police Station,
District-Ahmednagar on 27th January 2024, and later on by way
of amendment, for quashing the proceedings in Special Case
No.179 of 2024, pending before the learned Special Judge, under
the Atrocities Act, Ahmednagar, for the offence punishable under
Sections 354-C, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections
cria-1985.24+
3
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Pawar appearing for the
applicants, learned APP Mr. Wange for respondent No.1 and
learned Advocate Mr. Wagh for respondent No.2, in both the
Applications.
3. Learned Advocate appearing for the applicants has taken
us through the entire charge-sheet and he submits that perusal
of the FIR will not attract the offences under Sections 3(1)(r)
and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Sections under the Indian
Penal Code are non-cognizable. It is the contention of the
informant that on 27th January 2024, around 6.00 a.m., his
mother had gone behind his house for answering the nature's
call. The informant noticed that the applicants were making
shooting with drone camera of the ladies who used to go for
answering nature's call in the open space and therefore, he
objected to the same and at that time all the three accused
persons started abusing him in the name of caste and gave
threat to kill him if he intervenes. The informant says that after
he raised voice, certain other persons came there. By that time
cria-1985.24+
4
the ladies who had gone for answering nature's call, came back
and then the accused persons went away. If we consider the
statements of the ladies who had allegedly gone for answering
the nature's call, they have stated that they saw the drone
camera due to which they became ashamed and therefore, they
came back. They were not present when the alleged abuses
were given in the name of caste. The statements of those
persons who had gathered at the spot after the informant raised
voice, would show that they had seen the drone camera and also
people who had gathered in front of the shop of Wahab Iliyas
Pathan and they made inquiry. But their statements are hear-
say. Therefore, no independent witness was present when the
alleged abuses were given in the name of caste. Under such
circumstances, it appears that the FIR has been lodged with
mala fide intention.
4. Learned Advocate appearing for the applicants submitted
that original accused No.3 - Walmik Rajaram Garudkar had filed
Public Interest Litigation No.4 of 2022 before this Court for
removal of encroachment in Gat No.296 situated at village
Tisgaon. In fact the informant and the witnesses now quoted,
had made encroachment in the said Gat number. This Court by
order dated 17th August 2023, directed the Block Development
cria-1985.24+
5
Officer and Chief Executive Officer to initiate inquiry in respect of
Gat No.296 within a period of 120 days and to initiate action
against the concerned persons. In view of the said order, the
inquiry officer had issued notices to the encroachers to remove
their encroachment within the stipulated period. Those notices
were also received by the informant and the witnesses. The
informant and the witnesses have approached this Court by filing
separate petitions challenging the notices. Again this Court had
directed the authority to make inquiry and initiate steps for
removal of the encroachments, per the procedure of law. Thus, it
can be seen that the FIR is in retaliation and to avoid the
removal of encroachment.
5. Learned Advocate for the applicants relies on the decision
in Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others,
(2008) 12 SCC 531, wherein it has been observed that the
informant ought to have alleged that the accused persons were
not the members of the scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe and
he was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with
an intention to humiliate in a place within public view. It is
submitted that no such averments are there in the present case
and therefore, it would be an abuse of process of law to ask the
applicants to face the trial, when in fact the charge-sheet
cria-1985.24+
6
appears to have been filed for the offence punishable under
Sections 354-C, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
6. Per contra, the learned APP as well as learned Advocate for
respondent No.2 strongly opposed the Applications and
submitted that though initially the FIR was only under Sections
504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, taking into consideration the statements of the
ladies, Section 354-C of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)
(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, came to be added. In fact such an
act of making shooting/videography of the ladies who had gone
for answering the nature's call in the open area, certainly
amounts to outraging their modesty. A memory card has been
seized in the matter which was produced by accused - Krushna
Nandu Lawande. Under such circumstances, it is now required to
be seen by the trial Court, as to what is there in that memory
card. Each and every witness is saying that they had seen the
drone in that area and the informant says that he had seen that
cria-1985.24+
7
the control of the drone was with the accused persons.
Therefore, certainly the offences are made out.
7. At the outset, we would like to deal with the law point that
has been raised that the caste of the accused is not mentioned in
the FIR and the reliance has been placed on Gorige Pentaiah vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (supra). We would like to
rely on Three Judge Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Ashabai Machindra Adhagale vs. State of Maharashtra
and others, 2009(3) SCC 789, wherein it has been held that the
FIR is not an encyclopedia. The view taken by the High Court is
not correct. Rules are framed under the Act and Rule 7 deals
with investigation has to be done by the officer now below the
rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Ascertainment of fact
can be made by the investigating officer during investigation in
respect of the caste of accused. After final opinion is formed, it is
open to the Court to either accept the same or take cognizance.
Even if the charge sheet is filed at the time of consideration of
the charge, it is open to the accused to bring to the notice of the
Court that the materials do not show that the accused does not
belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. Even if charge is
framed at the time of trial materials can be placed to show that
the accused either belongs or does not belong to scheduled caste
cria-1985.24+
8
or scheduled tribe. Here, in the present case, from the charge-
sheet we could find that statement has been made by the
investigating officer that the accused persons are Hindu Mali and
Hindu Maratha, especially the communication dated 27 th January
2024, by the investigating officer would show that three accused
persons are Mali by caste and one accused is Hindu Maratha.
Therefore, there is evidence to the effect that the accused are
not the members of either scheduled caste or scheduled tribe.
Therefore, in view of the decision by the Larger Bench, we are of
the opinion that the trial before the Special Court is justified.
8. Now, coming towards the facts of the case, though when
the FIR was lodged, it was under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, but later on taking into consideration the
statements of the ladies, Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
has been added. Section 354-C of the Indian Penal Code has also
been added. The facts are clear that when the ladies had gone
for answering nature's call, it is alleged that the present
applicants have managed to get done the video recording of the
same by a drone camera. Almost all the witnesses have stated
that they have seen the drone camera in the sky around 6.00
cria-1985.24+
9
a.m., on 27th January 2024. Statements of those ladies,
specifically who had gone for the nature's call, have also been
recorded and therefore, even if we consider that the accused
persons might not be knowing as to which lady had gone for
answering nature's call and her caste, yet the fact then would be
covered under Section 354-C of the Indian Penal Code. At this
stage when this fact is coming on record that there was a video
shooting with the help of drone camera, it shows the mental
sickness of the persons doing such activities. Even if for the sake
of arguments it is accepted that one of the accused had filed the
Public Interest Litigation for removal of encroachment in the
village, yet the order that was passed by this Court and the law
would have taken its recourse. Such act of making video
recording of the ladies when they had gone for answering the
nature's call, cannot be justified for anything and it cannot be
said to be the allegation in retaliation. Certainly, trial is required
when the entire investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed.
This is not a fit case where the powers can be exercised in
respect of quashing the FIR for the offence punishable under
Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Sections 354-C, 504,
506 of the Indian Penal Code.
cria-1985.24+
10
9. However, at the same time it is to be noted that for
ingredients of offence under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, there has to be an independent witness who
would have heard the abuses those have been given in the name
of the caste for insulting the member of the scheduled caste or
scheduled tribe and that is the requirement as held in Hitesh
Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, 2021 CRI. L.J. 1.
We are of the opinion that to the extent of offence punishable
under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, case is made out
for quashment of the FIR and the proceedings in the Special
Case and therefore, we proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
(I) Both the Applications stand partly allowed.
(II) The proceedings in Special Case No.179 of 2024, pending before the learned Special Judge, under the Atrocities Act, Ahmednagar, arising out of the First Information Report vide Crime No. 79 of 2024, registered with Pathardi Police Station, District-Ahmednagar on 27th January 2024, stands cria-1985.24+ 11 quashed and set aside, to the extent of offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as against the applicants i.e. - 1) Nandu S/o Namdeo Lokhande,
2) Walmik S/o Rajaram Garudkar in Criminal Application No.1985 of 2024, and applicant - Amol S/o Pandurang Bhadake in Criminal Application No.1987 of 2024.
(III) Matter to proceed for rest of the charges against the applicants in both the Applications, i.e. for the offence punishable under Sections 354-C, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section - 3(1)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
[SANJAY A. DESHMUKH] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]
JUDGE JUDGE
asb/JULY25