BAPUSAHEB LAXMAN DARANDALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset, learned Advocate Mr. T.V. Kamble submits that he has instructions to appear on behalf of respondent No.2. He may file his Vakalatnama. Under such circumstance, there is no necessity to issue notice to respondent No.2.

(2.) Heard learned Advocate for the appellants, learned APP for respondent No.1 and learned Advocate for the respondent No.2-original informant.

(3.) It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that they are apprehending arrest at the hands of M.I.D.C., Waluj Police Station in respect of Crime No.12/2020 dated 07.01.2020, on the basis of the First Information Report lodged by the respondent No.2, for the offences punishable under Section 294, 452, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) , 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as "The Atrocities Act"). It has been submitted that since 2011 the appellants, informant and two more persons were residing by making construction on plot, which is under the jurisdiction of Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation. They were residing as family members and there were no dispute between them. An encroachment was made by the respondent No.2, and it was requested by the appellants that she should remove it, which was causing inconvenience to the appellants. When she did not, the appellants approached the concerned authority from M.I.D.C. by making a complaint application dated 22.07.2019, requesting for the removal of the encroachment. Thereafter, the appellants were continuously pursuing the authorities to remove that encroachment by the respondent No.2. The appellants had visited the office at M.I.D.C. on 06.01.2020, and when the respondent No.2 got knowledge about the said action taken by the appellants, she went to Police Station and lodged the report on 07.01.2020. Therefore, the said First Information Report has been lodged with mala fide intention. Perusal of the First Information Report would show, that the alleged incident dated 18.12.2019 had taken place inside the house of the informant and therefore, it was not within the public view, as contemplated under Section 3 (1) (r) of the Atrocities Act. As regards the alleged incident dated 19.12.2019 is concerned, it also does not attract the ingredients, as she has not stated that anybody had viewed the incident. Further, as the First Information Report has been lodged with mala fide intention, there is no obstacle for grant of ad interim relief and no bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act.