1. This application is filed with prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 15-5-2008 lodged with non-applicant No.1 vide Crime No.229/2008 for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 186, 294 and 506 along with Chapter Proceeding No.130/08 under Sections 107 and 116 (3) of Cr.P.C. and so also the Chargesheet No. 280/2009 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Akola arising out of Crime No.229/2008.

2. Background facts of the case as disclosed in the application are as under:-

The applicant is permanent resident of Akola(State of Maharashtra). The applicant is a Bachelor of Technology from Shivaji College, Akola. The applicant after completing his graduation, has further taken his Law Degree and has started practice at District Court, Akola in September, 2004 and since then is actively practicing before the District Court, Akola and the High Court. The applicant has also cleared the examination conducted by the M.P.S.C. for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate (First Class) in the year 2008. The applicant also appeared for interview on 31st April, 2008 and has been selected for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate (First Class) on 7th May, 2008.

3. The applicant’s father namely, Shri Ganesh Pathak was a District Government Pleader in Akola for about ten years. A report was lodged against him on 12th February, 2008, by one Ruby @ Urvashi Rajendra Thada, on the basis of which offence under Sections 120(B), 376, 363, 365, 342, 307, 323, 506 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the father of the applicant. The father of the applicant had, therefore, moved the Hon’ble High Court for anticipatory bail, which was rejected and had further moved the Hon’ble Apex Court for anticipatory bail. The father of the applicant was pursuing all the remedies available to him under the law.

4. It is the case of the applicant that while the process was going on, the father of the applicant was pursuing his remedies, the C.I.D. Officials were inquiring from the applicant and his family members about whereabouts of Ganesh Pathak though they did not have any knowledge. The said C.I.D. Officials probably wanted to take Ganesh Pathak in their custody and Ganesh Pathak at that point of time was not protected by the orders of the Court. The said C.I.D. Officials earlier to 3-5-2008 had visited and enquired from the applicant and his family members which consists of his sister and mother, however, since they did not have any information, accordingly they had told the same to the officials. In spite of this on 2nd May, 2008, the complainant in the above crime namely, Sunita Meshram, A.P.I. visited the house of the applicant at night time and enquired from the sister of the applicant and was pressurizing the sister of the applicant for about two hours. That on 3rd May, 2008 she came again at 12-30 in the afternoon and enquired about the mother of the applicant. She further told that she wanted to investigate in respect of the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code registered against Ganesh Pathak. The applicant and his sister namely, Vaidehi Sachin Ahirrao informed the said Sunita Meshram that their mother is not in the house and has gone to the temple. In spite of telling so, she entered in the house and went up to the kitchen and to the bedroom without there being any written permission for doing so. The applicant had, therefore, registered his mild protest against the same, to which she reacted threatening the applicant to implicate him in a false case. The applicant, therefore, had immediately reported the matter to the Human Rights Commission by sending a telegram on 3-5-2008. Perusal of the telegram would show that the applicant has raised his apprehension before the Human Rights Commission that he would be falsely implicated in the offence since he objected to the arbitrary behaviour of the said A.P.I. Sunita Meshram. To the ut