- 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