DAULATRAO NANASAHEB PISAL Vs. BHUINJ POLICE STATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case a complaint has been lodged by one Mrs. Ashatai Jayawant Parte to the effect that the applicant has tried to outrage her modesty. It is alleged that she belongs to Scheduled Caste. The applicant is liable to be proceeded against for having committed offences under Sections 354, 504 and 506 of the INdian Penal Code and under Section 3 (1) and (xi) and Section 3 (ix) of the S. C. & S. T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter "the Act" ).

(2.) THE applicant is stated to be a journalist. Due to his investigations, one Dr. Kadam and his wife who were running a ring of vice came to be arrested. Husband and wife were not able to get bail for a considerable period of time. It is submitted by Mr. Thorat, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, that as a result Dr. Kadam became enimical towards the applicant. He further submits it is at his behest that the complaint has been filed by Mrs. Parte. She is alleged to have been married to a Hindu-Maratha many years ago. She is the mother of four children. Story put forward by Mrs. Parte is that she was conducting some litigation against her husband for maintenance. THE Applicant is supposed to have assured her that he will pursue her case on her behalf. On the day of the incident, Mrs. Parte is stated to have gone to the house of the applicant who at about 9 . 30 a. m. in the morning tried to have sexual intercourse with her. Apprehending arrest the applicant filed Anticipatory Bail Application No.535 of 1997 in the Sessions Court at Satara. THE Additional Sessions Judge on 17th December, 1997 dismissed the said application for anticipatory bail. It has been held that in view of the bar contained in Section 18 of the Act, the application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable.

(3.) IN my view, the disputes which have been raised with regard to the caste of Mrs. Parte cannot be adjudicated in these proceedings. Had it been an admitted case that the alleged victim belonged to S. C. then perhaps the bar under Section 18 would apply. Even otherwise the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University & Ors. JT 1996 (1) SC 57 : AIR 1996 SC 1011 : 1996 Lab IC 919 : 1996 (33) ATC 713 : 1996 (3) SCC 545 : 1996 (3) Guj LR 92 has held that a husband and wife are one under Hindu law and so long as the wife survives, she is half of the husband. The Supreme Court further held as under : " It would, therefore, be clear that be it either under the Canon law or the Hindu law, on marriage wife becomes an integral part of husband's marital home entitled to equal status of husband as a member of the family. Therefore, the lady, on marriage, becomes a member of the family and thereby she becomes a member of the caste to which she moved. The caste rigidity breaks down and would stand no impediment to her becoming a member of the family to which the husband belongs and she gets herself transplanted. "