Back
2018 Supreme(Bom) 1371
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
T.V. NALAWADE, VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ.
Ramesh S/o Dhondiram Aurange – Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Application No. 01646 of 2018
Decided On : 03-09-2018
For the Applicant : Mr. Santosh V. Munde.
For the Respondents: Ms. V.S. Choudhari, Mr. G.D. Kale.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 354, 504 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 197 - FIR - Jurisdiction of Society - Office of Assistant Commissioner of Fisheries - Applicants are government servants - They are serving Assistant Commissioner of Fisheries Assistant Fisheries Development Officer respectively - Applicant is authorized to give approval to allotment of tank slakes to Fisheries Societies - There is tank situated at village Martial which is within jurisdiction Society - Respondent belongs to Society whose jurisdiction is on Tank - Some ladies including respondent gents from Society went to office of Assistant Commissioner of Fisheries before office could be opened – Held, She has tried to give an explanation for delay that she feared for defamation - It is to be noted that according to heart that time itself other ladies were with hers also some gents - It is hard to believe that she would have been alone called in cabin - She does not claim that she was chairman or any office bearer of said Machida Society and then she was taken in cabin pretext to have dialogue - It appears that business rivalry with other fishery society is also reason behind dispute - According to informant contract of said lake was given to their Society - However it was abruptly cancelled and then it was given to another Society - Respondent is not denying her presence on that day at relevant time - She does not say that she had immediately disclosed what had happened in cabin persons who were accompanying her - None of witnesses whose statements have been taken show that there was any kind of immediate disclosure though it was tried to be stated by witnesses that when she came out of cabin she was in frightened condition - They also say that they had asked her about reason but she did not disclose - Incident is alleged to have taken place whereas FIR has been lodged - Therefore there is ample opportunity to concoct story – FIR in question appears to be only for purpose as counter blast to FIR lodged on behalf of applicants - Such circumstance case squarely falls parameters laid down by Honble Apex Court in case of State of Haryana and Others – Hence application deserves to be allowed exercise of inherent powers Section – Order accordingly
VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally.
2. Present application has been filed by original accused persons for quashment of the first information report lodged at the instance of present respondent no. 02 vide Crime No. 0071/2018, registered with Shivajinagar Police Station at Nanded, on 08.04.2018, for offences punishable under Sections 354, 504, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The applicants are government servants. They are serving as Assistant Commissioner of Fisheries and Assistant Fisheries Development Officer, respectively. Applicant no. 01 is authorized to give approval to allotment of tanks, lakes to Fisheries Societies. There is a tank situated at village Martala which is within the jurisdiction of Bhoi Samaj Macchhimar Society. Respondent no. 02 belongs to Walmiki Macchhimar Society, whose jurisdiction is Sugaon Tank in Loha Taluka. Some ladies, including respondent no. 02 and gents from Walmiki Macchhimar Society, Sugaon, went to the office of Assistant Commissioner of Fisheries, on 28.03.2018 before the office could be opened. When the officers from that office wanted to open the office around 10.00 a.m. members of Walmiki Macchimar Cooperative Society obstructed them. Applicants were also amongst those officials. Those persons from Macchimar Society were asking the applicant to give contract of Martala tank to their Society. In the process of agitation, they had beaten applicant no. 01 and they had torn his clothes. Other officials were obstructed from doing their office work. Therefore, a complaint was lodged against respondent no. 02 and others with Shivajinagar Police Station at Nanded vide Crime No. 0062/2018 for offences punishable under Sections 353, 323, 143, 147 and 149 of Indian Penal Code. The incident was published in daily newspaper Dainik Punyanagari. Police had arrested the accused persons from that offence, including respondent no. 02 and they were produced before the court. Those accused persons were than released on bail by the court.
4. It is further case of the applicants, that in order to give a counter blast to the said offence registered against them, respondent no. 02 filed first information report vide Crime No. 0071/2018. It was alleged in the said FIR by her, that when she as well as other ladies and gents went to the office of Assistant Commissioner of Fisheries, she alone was called in the cabin by applicant no. 01 and then applicant no. 01 had outraged her modesty. It is contended that the said FIR is utterly false. There is inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging that FIR. It was obligatory on the part of respondent no. 02 and the police officers to obtain sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, from the competent authority before registration of the FIR. There is no question of outraging modesty of respondent no. 02 when, in fact, the applicants were obstructed by the members of Macchimar Society from even entering the office. On these grounds, the applicants have prayed for quashment of the FIR.
5. Heard learned Advocate Mr. S.V. Munde for the applicants. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. V.S. Choudhari for respondent no. 01. So also, heard learned Advocate Mr. G.D. Kale for respondent no. 02.
6. Perused the police papers as well as the papers produced by the applicants.
7. Learned Advocate for the applicants has mainly relied on the fact that the FIR lodged by applicant no. 01 is prior in time and the FIR lodged by respondent no. 02 is just a counter blast.
8. Per contra, it has been submitted on behalf of the respondents, that the delay has been explained by the informant in her supplementary statement. She had not lodged the FIR under the fear of being defamed. The investigation has been made by recording statements of the witnesses. So also, statements of the witnesses have been recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and, therefore, when there is evidence against
