Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: October 22, 2026

Case Overview

  • Applicants: Raja Bahadur International Limited and others; Respondent: State of Maharashtra.
  • Criminal Application No.3798 of 2009 filed on 17‑08‑2009 seeking quash of Special Case No.2857 of 2008 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class No.3, Pune.
  • Interim relief was earlier granted; the application was heard finally on 22‑10‑2026 before Justice Milind N. Jadhav.
  • The underlying complaint (filed 15‑07‑2008) alleged offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 together with IPC sections 34, 109 and 120B, claiming that the Applicants, who are not members of SC/ST, were occupying Mahar Watan land belonging to the Complainant, a descendant of the original Watandar.
  • Historical land background: The land was Mahar Watan land leased in breach of Section 5 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874; resumed by the British Government in 1891 and granted to Poona Silk and Cotton Manufacturing Company Limited (predecessor of Applicant No.1) on free‑hold basis. The Watans were abolished in 1928; the Bombay Inferior Vatans (Abolition) Act, 1958 did not apply to this land.
  • The Complainant filed a writ petition on 29‑06‑2006 directing the Collector, Pune, to consider re‑grant under the 1958 Act. The Collector, on 30‑04‑2007, rejected the re‑grant claim, stating the land was already granted to Applicant No.1 and that no enquiry was contemplated under Section 20 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1960.
  • The Complainant appealed the Collector’s order before the Additional Commissioner and also filed Writ Petition No.1923 of 2008, which was disposed on 21‑07‑2008, limiting the challenge to provisions of the MLRC.
  • A civil suit (No.11002 of 2008) seeking declaratory relief over the land was dismissed on 20‑10‑2008 under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC; the first appeal was returned on 17‑01‑2009 for presentation before the appropriate court. The Complainant suppressed this dismissal when seeking criminal process.
  • The complaint alleged that the Applicants, being non‑SC/ST, were committing an atrocity by occupying the Watan land, invoking Section 3 of the Atrocities Act. No specific dates, acts, or factual allegations were provided.
  • The Applicants argued that the dispute is purely civil, that the land title rests with them via the 1891 grant, and that the Atrocities Act is inapplicable.
  • The Respondent (State) contended that the complaint established a prima facie case under the Atrocities Act and that the Applicants should be tried.

Final Outcome

  • The Court found that the complaint is frivolous, unsubstantiated, and essentially a civil dispute; the Atrocities Act provisions are not attracted.
  • The Collector’s 30‑April‑2007 order rejecting the re‑grant claim is final and absolute.
  • The dismissal of the civil suit and the pending revision application demonstrate that the Complainant’s title claim is unresolved in civil forum, not criminal court.

Order

  • The application is allowed; the record and proceedings in Special Case No.2857 of 2008 before JMFC No.3, Pune are called for and thereafter quashed.
  • The Applicants are discharged of all charges.
  • All steps taken by the lower court to proceed with the criminal case are set aside.
  • Criminal Application No.3798 of 2009 is disposed.

Topics: Criminal Procedure, SC/ST Atrocities Act, Land Title Dispute