GANGASAGAR ABHIMANYU RASKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

                                -1-
                                                 criappln3019.23.odt

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

          935 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3019 OF 2023

Gangasagar Abhimanyu Raskar                     ….Applicant

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & another              …..Respondents

Mr. S. G. Kawade, Advocate for Applicant,
Mr. A. R. Kale, APP for the State.
Mr. S. E. Bagate, Advocate holding for Mr. S. M. Kamble, Advocate for
Respondent No. 2.

                              CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                              DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2026.
PER COURT :


1.    Applicant seeks quashment of proceeding in Special Case No.

93/2023 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, in

pursuant to the First Information Report bearing Crime No.

0085/2023 registered with Chaklamba Police Station, Tq. Georai,

Dist. Beed, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 r/w

34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)I(s) and 3(2)(va) of

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

so also order of issuance of summons dated 27.06.2023 passed in

Special Case No. 93/2023.
                                 -2-
                                                  criappln3019.23.odt

2.    Charge-sheet in the matter is filed pursuant to the investigation

carried out. First Information Report indicates that the incident had

occurred on 11.04.2023 in which the present Applicant and co-

accused are said to have involved. There is allegation against the co-

accused of abusing the informant over his caste.      There is further

allegation against the present Applicant of assaulting the informant.



3.    Learned Counsel for Applicant submits that there are political

disputes between the parties and owing to the said disputes, there

are complaints and counter complaints against each other. As far as

present Applicant is concerned, it is sought to be argued that there is

no allegation against her which could attract provisions of Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. According

to him, Applicant is a lady and that she cannot be subjected to

undergo rigours of the trial.



4.    Learned APP and learned Counsel for the informant opposed

the application.    It is their contention that on the basis of First

Information Report as well as statements recorded during the course

of investigation, it cannot be said that no prima facie offence is made

out against the Applicant.
                                    -3-
                                                     criappln3019.23.odt



5.    No doubt, there is no allegation against the present Applicant

that she abused the informant over caste. The allegation against the

present Applicant is of causing assault on the informant which has

formed part of the same incident. Needless to say that there cannot

be different trials in respect of the same incident against different

accused persons. In the light of this fact, this is not a case wherein

there is no evidence on record in order to hold that offence is not

made out against the Applicant. It would be relevant to take note of

the judgment in case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal

and others, AIR 1992 SCC 335.             The relevant paragraph reads

thus :-

          “ 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
          various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter
          XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this
          Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of
          the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
          inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which
          we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the
          following categories of cases by way of illustration
          wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent
          abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure
          the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay
          down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
                           -4-
                                             criappln3019.23.odt

channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae
and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.


(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against
the accused.


(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do
not   disclose   a   cognizable   offence,   justifying   an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of
the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within
the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.


(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support
of the same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the accused.


(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
                                -5-
                                                  criappln3019.23.odt

      (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
      are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
      which no prudent person can ever reach a just
      conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
      against the accused.


      (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
      of the provisions of the Code of the concerned Act
      (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
      institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
      where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
      concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
      grievance of the aggrieved party.


      (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
      with   mala   fide   and/or   where   the   proceeding   is
      maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
      wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
      spite him due to private and personal grudge.”



6.    Prima facie, allegations in the First Information Report do not

satisfy the aforementioned requisite conditions for quashment of the

proceeding. Hence, application stands rejected.



7.    Needless to state that the Trial Court shall not get influenced

with this order and decide the proceeding on its own merit.
      -6-
             criappln3019.23.odt



            ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)

dyb