2007 ALL MR (Cri) 475
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY(AURANGABAD BENCH)

J.H. BHATIA, J.

Dr. Surendra S/O. Shankarlal Bajaj & Ors.Vs.State Of Maharashtra

Criminal Revision Application No.289 of 2006

13th September, 2006

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. S. J. SALUNKE,Mr. V. D. SALUNKE
Respondent Counsel: Mr. N. H. BORADE

Penal Code (1860), Ss.323, 342, 506 r/w. 34 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (1989), S.3(1)(x) - Criminal P.C. (1973), S.482 - Quashing of proceedings - Effect - Once proceedings under Atrocities Act are quashed, Additional Sessions Judge could not proceed with trial of offence punishable under Ss.323, 342 and 506 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. because all those offences are triable by J.M.F.C. (Para 6)

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent, the matter is taken up for final hearing immediately.

2. Heard the learned counsel for applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. Perused the papers.

3. Crime No.176 of 2004 was registered at Police Station Beed for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 342 of I.P.C. and 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Atrocities Act" for the sake of brevity). The report was lodged by one Pradeep Ashok Waghmare on 27.12.2004. According to him, on that day at about 10.30 a.m. onwards, the accused-applicants had assaulted him and also abused him in the name of caste. He claims that he belongs to Mahar caste. The applicants had filed criminal application No.118 of 2005 to quash the said F.I.R. and investigation therein for the offence of the Atrocities Act mainly on the ground that the complaint/F.I.R. did not disclose the caste of the accused persons. That application was heard and disposed of alongwith group of 58 other matters by common judgment dated 4.8.2005 by this Court (Coram : R. S. Mohite, J.)

4. All those applications were allowed holding that if the complainant does not disclose that he belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes or if in the report it is not disclosed that the accused does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes, offence under the provisions of the Atrocities Act cannot be registered and investigated. Accordingly criminal application No.118 of 2005 was also allowed alongwith the other matters.

5. It appears that writ of the said order was also communicated to the Sessions Court, Beed. According to the applicants, they had also placed copy of the order alongwith the application before the learned IV Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed contending that in view of the order passed by the High Court, F.I.R to the extent of offence under the Atrocities Act has been quashed and therefore, charge could not be framed for the offence under the Atrocities Act and the case could not be proceeded before the learned Sessions Court. It appears that the said application was opposed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, who appeared on behalf of the State. After hearing the parties, the IV Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed rejected the said application on the ground that copy of the criminal application No.118 of 2005 was not placed on record, even though the writ received from this Court was clear. Having rejected the application of the applicants, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 342, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. as well as under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act on 20.7.2006. Framing of the charges by the IV Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, is challenged in the present revision application.

6. The judgment passed by this Court on 4.8.2005 in a group of 59 matters including criminal application No.118 of 2005, clearly shows that all those applications were allowed and the F.I.R./proceedings under the Atrocities Act in the respective cases were quashed either on the ground that the report lodged by the complainant did not disclose his own caste or tribe or it did not disclose that the accused did not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes. Criminal application No.118 of 2005 was shown in the group of matters, wherein in the body of the F.I.R. caste of the accused was not mentioned and it was not disclosed that the accused did not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes. In view of the said order, there could be no scope for any doubt that the proceedings for the offence under the Atrocities Act could not continue. Once the F.I.R. and the further proceedings therein for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act were quashed, the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to frame the charge for the said offence. Once the proceedings under the Atrocities Act are quashed, the IV Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge also could not proceed with the trial of the offence punishable under Sections 323, 342 and 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. because all those offences are trible by J.M.F.C. In view of these circumstances, the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge should have allowed the application of the applicants and remanded the matter back to the concerned J.M.F.C. for trial for the offences under the Indian Penal Code. The learned IV Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge committed serious error in rejecting the application of the applicants and in framing the charge against them.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, the present revision application is allowed. The charges framed by the IV Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge. Beed against the present applicants under Sections 323, 342, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act are hereby set aside. As the proceedings for the offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act are already quashed by the judgment of this Court dated 4.3.2005, the case arising out of the crime No.176 of 2004 registered by the Beed police station shall stand remanded to the concerned J.M.F.C. at Beed for trial for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 342, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. as per law.

8. Criminal revision application is allowed. Rule made absolute accordingly.

Revision application allowed.