Bombay High Court
Anand Kumar Chauksey S/O Ghanshyam ... vs State Of Mah., Thr. Pso Ps Gobarwahi (Tq ... on 4 March, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:4054-DB
14 apl 1012.19.odt..odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1012 OF 2019
1. Anand Kumar Chauksey s/o
Ghanshyam Chauksey APPLICANT
A/o 57 Years, Occ. Service,
Mine Manager MOIL Ltd,
R/o Chikla Mines,
Moil Ltd. At and Post Sitasawangi,
Tah. Tumsar, District Bhandara
// V E R S U S //
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.O. P. S. Gabarwahi, NON-APPLICANT
(Tah. Tumsar, District Bhandara)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A.S. Mardikar, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Masood
Shareef, Advocate for the applicant.
Mrs. Mrunal Barbade, APP for non-applicant/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
DATED : 04.03.2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. ADMIT. Taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
14 apl 1012.19.odt..odt 2
3. The present application is preferred by the applicant for quashing of the First Information Report in connection with crime No.06/2019 registered with the non-applicant No.1-Police Station Gobarwahi under Sections 341, 355, 323, 143, 147, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) and 3(2)
(vii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 66-E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and consequent proceedings arising out of the same bearing charge-sheet No.8/2019.
4. Heard learned counsel for the applicants who submitted that crime is registered on the basis of the report lodged by non-applicant No.2 on an allegation that on 03.01.2019 at around 06.00 a.m. in the morning when he along with his friends had forwarded to Chikhla to Sitasawangi road the guards of MOIL intercepted them and starting beating them by saying that the incidents of the theft are increasing in the said premises and for that they are responsible. Thereafter they were carried in the vehicle of the MOIL office and took in the office of the present applicant. Present applicant was present there. In his presence the guards removed the clothes of complainant and his friends abused them in filthy language and also taken them to locality in a 14 apl 1012.19.odt..odt 3 disrobe condition. One of the accused has taken video shooting of all the incident and circulated the same on the social media and thereafter the FIR came to be lodged.
5. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. A.S. Mardikar, for the applicant who submitted that even accepting the allegation as it is by stretch of imagination it can be said that present applicant was member of unlawful assembly and in furtherance of the common object of the said assembly he has committed the said offence. He submitted that Section 149 of the IPC has its foundation on constructive liability which is the sine qua non for its operation. Mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object and he was actuated by that common object and that object is one of those set out in Section 141. He invited my attention towards the various statements of the witnesses as well as medical certificate and submitted that the allegations levelled against the present applicant that there was assault in his presence is not substantiated by any of the medical certificate as no injuries are found on their person when they are examined. Moreover he submitted that only allegation is that when the complainant and 14 apl 1012.19.odt..odt 4 his friends were assaulted the present applicant was present in the office. Except that allegation there is absolutely no allegation against the present applicant. He submitted that mere presence would not be sufficient either to attract the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(e), 3(2)(va), 3(2)(vii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989 and Section 66(e) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. He submitted that the offence under Sections 341, 355, 323, of the IPC is also not made out against the present applicant. In view of that application deserves to be allowed.
6. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the said contentions and submitted that considering in his presence the complainant and his friends were assaulted is sufficient to infer his common intention, common object along with other accused persons. In view of that application deserves to be rejected.
7. On hearing both the parties and on perusal of the entire investigation papers, it reveals that FIR came to be lodged on 12.01.2019 regarding the incident date 03.01.2019. On perusal of the entire FIR admittedly there is no explanation as far as delayed FIR is concerned. On going through the entire allegations 14 apl 1012.19.odt..odt 5 levelled against the present applicant which show that on 03.01.2019 when the complainant along with his friend had been to for morning walk in the premises of the MOIL at that time the guard intercepted them and they were assaulted at that place. And thereafter they brought in the office of present applicant wherein also they were assaulted. Thus, as far as first incident is concerned, admittedly the presence of the present applicant was not there. The duty chart also shows that duty starts at 8.00 a.m. So presence of the present applicant is neither stated by the witnesses when the first incident has occurred. Subsequently guards have brought him in the office of the present applicant. Only allegation is that in his presence also the guards have assaulted the complainant and his friends and therefore, the investigating agency have applied Sections 143, 147 and 149 of the IPC against the present applicant. Admittedly Section 149 has its foundation on constructive liability which is the sine qua non on its foundation. The emphasis is on the common object and not on common intention. Mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object and he was actuated by that common object and that object is one of those set out in Section 141. Section 149 of the IPC makes 14 apl 1012.19.odt..odt 6 every member of unlawful assembly at the time of committing of an offence and the guilty of the offence. The Section creates the vicarious liability for the unlawful acts committed pursuant to the common object by any other member of the assembly. The basic of such constructive liability is mere membership of such assembly with the requisite common object or not. In view of that if the allegations levelled against the present applicant is seen admittedly at the time of first incident he was not present. He first time came to know about the incident when the complainant and the other his friends were brought to his office by the guards. The statements of the witnesses disclose that they were assaulted by the guards brought them there. Therefore as far as offence punishable under Sections 341 355, 320 is concerned that mean at the most it would attract against the guards who were on duty at the relevant time and allegedly assaulted them. The offence under Section 66 (E) of the Information Technology Act will also attract against the said guards as one of the guards has obtained the photographs or the shooting of the said incident in his mobile phone. As far as present applicant is concerned, there is no allegation that he has either shared that video shooting with anybody or he has forwarded to anybody or he has obtained the 14 apl 1012.19.odt..odt 7 same. Therefore, the offence under Section 66 (E) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is also not attracted against the present applicant.
8. Now coming to the offence under Section 3(1)(e), 3(2)(va), 3(2)(vii) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is concerned, this aspect is considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shajan Skaria vs. State of Kerala in Criminal Appeal No.2622/2024 decided on 23.08.2024 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that it is not the purport of the Act, 1989 that every act of intentional insult or intimidation meted by a person who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe to a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe would attract the provisions under Section Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) specially under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 merely because it is committed against a person who happens to be a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. While expressing the words the intent to humiliate it is observed that the words "with intent to humiliate" as they appear in the test of 3(1)(r) of the Act are "with intent to humiliate" as 14 apl 1012.19.odt..odt 8 they appear in the text Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 are inextricably linked to the caste identity of the person who is subjected to intentional insult or intimidation. Not every intentional insult or intimidation of a member of a SC/ST community will result into a feeling of caste-based humiliation. It is only in those cases where the intentional insult or intimidation takes place either due to the prevailing practice of untouchability or to reinforce the historically entrenched ideas like the superiority of the "upper castes" over the "lower castes/untouchables".
9. In the light of the above observation the facts of the present case are taken into consideration admittedly there is no knowledge to the present applicant that the complainant and his friends belong to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. There is no whisper in the FIR also that the present applicant and other co-accused knowing that they belong to the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe and despite the said knowledge they were humiliated by the present applicant as well as other accused. As far as role of the present applicant is concerned except mere presence absolutely no role is attributed by him. In view of that the application deserves to be allowed.
14 apl 1012.19.odt..odt 9
10. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Application is allowed.
(ii) First Information Report in connection with crime No.06/2019 registered with the non-applicant No.1-Police Station Gobarwahi under Sections 341, 355, 323, 143, 147, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) and 3(2)(vii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 66-E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and consequent proceedings arising out of the same bearing charge-sheet No.8/2019 is quashed and set aside to the extent of applicant.
11. The criminal application stands disposed of in the above said terms.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.) manisha Signed by: Mrs. Manisha Shewale Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 11/03/2026 11:46:57