Back
2020 Supreme(Bom) 459
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.
Vikas Ravindra Bandgar - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 2020
Decided On : 02-06-2020
For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul S. Kate i/b. Mr. Rupesh A. Zade.
For the Respondents: Mrs. M.H. Mhatre, APP, Ms. Rekha Musale i/b Mr. Nitin L. Rajguru, Mr. Anil Vasant Satpute..
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 15, 17 and 21 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 452, 323, 504, 506 and 447 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 - Section 3 - Sell And Purchase Of Properties As A Commission Agent - Respondent left service of and started dealing as a property agent - Meaning thereby he used to deal in sell and purchase of properties as a commission agent was desirous of purchasing some land at highway near village which he expressed to respondent in turn informed about a land situate of which owner - It is contention of respondent that price of said land was settled - It was agreed promised between respondent and that after sale deed would allot of land to respondent in lieu of his commission which would be helpful for education and future of respondent son - Subsequently despite deal having been finalized refused to keep his promise and thereby cheated respondent - It is contention of respondent that rather he was threatened and therefore respondent approached police and lodged a written complaint - Held, We are of considered opinion that requiring approval of SSP before an arrest is not warranted in such a case as that would be discriminatory and against protective discrimination envisaged - Apart from that no such guidelines can prevail which are legislative - When there is no provision for anticipatory bail obviously arrest has to be made - Without doubting bona fides of any officer it cannot be left at sweet discretion of incumbent howsoever high - approval would mean that it can also be ordered that person is not to be arrested then how investigation can be completed when arrest of an incumbent is necessary is not understandable - For an arrest of accused such a condition of approval of SSP could not have been made a sine qua non it may delay matter in cases - Creation of a casteless society is ultimate aim - We conclude with a pious hope that a day would come as expected by framers of constitution when we do not require any such legislation and there is no need to provide for any reservation and only one class of human exist equal in all respects and no caste system exist all citizens are emancipated and become equal as per constitutional goal - Appeal stands dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 01.12.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati directing issuance of process against the appellant under Sections 447, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the Act of 1989”).
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal can be summarized thus.
3. On 27.09.2018 one Sampat Shivdas Bandgar lodged a complaint against the respondent no.2 (original complainant) alleging that the respondent no.2 had given threats of false implication of the said Sampat Bandgar on castism and blackmailing him, in future.
4. The respondent no.2 was working for Sampat Bandgar since 1993 to 2005. In 2005, respondent no.2 left the service of Sampat Bandgar and started dealing as a property agent - meaning thereby, he used to deal in sell and purchase of properties as a commission agent. Sampat Bandgar was desirous of purchasing some land at highway near village Bhivgan, which he expressed to respondent no.2. The respondent no.2, in turn, informed Sampat Bandgar about a land bearing Gat No. 94, area 4 H 59 R situate at Bhadalwadi of which the owner was one Mr. Haribhau Shankar Shinde. It is the contention of the respondent no.2 that the price of the said land was settled at the rate of Rs.2,05,000/-per acre. It was agreed / promised between respondent no.2 and Sampat Bandgar that after the sale deed, Sampat Bandgar would allot 5 R of land i.e. 50 x 100 feet from the said Gat No. to respondent no.2 in lieu of his commission which would be helpful for the education and future of respondent no.2's son.
5. Subsequently, despite the deal having been finalized, Sampat Bandgar refused to keep his promise and thereby cheated the respondent no.2. It is the contention of the respondent no.2 that rather he was threatened by Sampat Bandgar and, therefore, respondent no.2 approached the police on 06.08.2018 and lodged a written complaint against Sampat Bandgar. It is alleged that the police did not take any action against Sampat Bandgar.
6. On 14.08.2018, Sampat Bandgar had sent the appellant to the house of respondent no.2. The appellant threatened the respondent no.2 to withdraw the complaint lodged against Sampat Bandgar, else, he would eliminate the respondent no.2 and his family. It is alleged that the appellant was armed with a revolver. He uttered following words naming the caste of the respondent no.2 by saying “tumha Mharana jasta masti aliya, tumchi masti jirvayla vel lagnar naahi”. The wife of respondent no.2 and his son witnessed the incident.
7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order dismissed the complaint against Sampat Bandgar, who was arraigned as accused no.1 and Dhairyasheel Ravindra Bandgar as accused no.3, however, issued process against the appellant as above. It is observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that on 14.08.2018, an eye-witness namely, Ajay has specifically alleged that the appellant arrived at their house in the front shed and humiliated the complainant by referring to his caste after brandishing the revolver and intimidated the respondent no.2 to withdraw the complaint filed against Sampat Bandgar. Thus, it is observed that prima facie a case has been made out against the appellant and, therefore, process was issued.
8. I have heard Mr. Rahul Kate, learned Counsel for the appellant. I have also heard Mrs. Mhatre learned APP for the State and Ms. Rekha Musale appearing for the respondent no.2 / the original complainant.
9. Shri. Kate, learned Counsel for the appellant took me through the impugned order by stressing that the allegation of alleged abuses on caste were not within public view and, therefore, there is no question of attracting the provisions of the Act of 1989. The second limb of his argument was that the alleged abuses on caste were heard on 14.08.2018 however, t
