1

apl400.17.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.400 OF 2017

Manohar s/o. Bajirao Meshram,

Aged about : 44 years, Occ.: Private,

R/o. Vaijeshwar Ward,

Paoni, Dist. Bhandara.

. . . APPLICANT

...V E R S U S..

1.State of Maharashtra, through

its Principal Secretary, Home

Department, Mantralaya,

Mumbai – 32.

2. Sub-Divisional Police Officer,

Paoni, Dist. Bhandara.

3. Police Station Officer, Police

Station, Paoni, Dist. Bhandara.

4. Ahok Munde,

Aged 44 years, Food Inspector,

Tahsil Karyalaya, Pauni,

R/o. Pauni, Tah. Pauni, Distt.

Bhandara.

5. Narendra Rachelwar,

Aged about 58 years, Tahsildar

Pauni, Tah. Pauni, Dist. Bhandara.

. . . NON-APPLICANTS

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shri C.U. Deopujari, Advocate for applicant.

Shri T.A.Mirza, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Non-

applicant/State.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM: Z.A. HAQ & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED : 22/01/2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER

AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)

2

apl400.17.odt

1.

Heard.

2.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3.

This is an application filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure challenging acceptance of “B”

Summary report submitted by the Investigating Agency under

Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant,

who is informant had lodged complaint with the non-applicant

no.3 Police Station for registration of offences punishable under

Sections 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section

3 (i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The investigating Agency

carried out the investigation in respect of the offences alleged by

the applicant in his complaint and submitted “B” summary report

to the Trial Court. The applicant raised objection to the acceptance

of “B” summary report before the Trial Court. By the impugned

order dated 19.12.2016, the Trial Court accepted “B” Summary

report submitted by the non-applicant no.3 without hearing the

applicant.

4.

Without going into other merits of the matter, we

are disposing of the present application, in view of the judgment

3

apl400.17.odt

of the Apex Court in the case of Bhagwant Singh Vs.

Commissioner of Police and another reported in AIR 1985 SC

1285, wherein the Apex Court has taken a view that in a case

where the Magistrate to whom a report is forwarded under sub-

section (2) of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

decides to take a view that there is no sufficient ground for

proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the First

Information Report, the Magistrate must give notice to the

informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time

of consideration of the report.

5.

In the facts of the present case, it appears that the

applicant had appered before the learned Trial Court and filed his

objection to the acceptance of “B” summary report. Copy of the

objection raised by the applicant is annexed at Page 94 of the

application . The applicant has specifically raised a ground that no

opportunity of hearing was given to the applicant before accepting

“B” summary report. The reply filed by the non-applicant no.1

does not dispute the ground raised by the applicant that no

opportunity of hearing was given to the applicant before accepting

“B” summary report. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the

Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Singh (supra), we are satisfied

4

apl400.17.odt

that the impugned order dated 19.12.2016 acepting “B” summary

report in relation to the First Information Report no.3064 of 2015

registred with the non-applicant no.3 - Police Station deserves to

be quashed and set side. We, therefore, pass the following order:

ORDER

(i)

The impugned order dated 19.12.2016 passed by

the