BABURAO MANIK RENGE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard fnally at the stage of admission.

(2.) The petitioners as well as respondent No. 2 in both the petitions are the same. Moreover, it appears that the petitioners are seeking quashing of two First Information Reports and consequent criminal proceedings thereof, lodged by respondent No.2. Though the crimes are separately registered, but since the petitioners and respondent No.2 are same in both the matters, we fnd it appropriate to decide both these criminal writ petitions by common judgment.

(3.) So far as Criminal Writ Petition No. 839 of 2020 is concerned, the petitioners, who are the original accused, have sought quashing of F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 128 of 2020 registered with Daithana Police Station on 2/7/2020 for the offences punishable under Ss. 324, 323, 504 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C.") and under Sec. 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, "the Atrocities Act"). During pendency of this petition, charge- sheet has been submitted and therefore, the petitioners have challenged the criminal proceedings being Special Case No.106 of 202 arising out of the aforesaid crime and pending before the learned Special and Sessions Judge, Parbhani. Whereas, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 841 of 2020 the petitioners are seeking quashing of F.I.R. being Crime No. 54 of 2020 registered with Daithana Police Station on 8/4/2020 for the offences punishable under Ss. 323, 504, 506 read with Sec. 34 of I.P.C. and under Ss. 3 (1)(r) and 3 (1) (s) of the Atrocities Act. In respect of the said crime, charge-sheet has been fled, and therefore, the petitioners have also sought quashing of the said charge-sheet being Special Case No. 97 of 2020 pending before the learned Special and Sessions Judge, Parbhani.