VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

1. Present petition has been filed by the accused persons for invoking the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing and setting aside the First Information Report (hereinafter referred as “FIR” for the sake of brevity) lodged against them by respondent No.3 – informant.

2. The petitioners contend that, petitioner No.1 is an anti corruption activist. She has filed detailed Public Interest Litigation before this Court at Principal Seat and also appropriate proceedings before PMLA Court against corrupt politicians and elected members of the legislature. Cognizance of certain matters has been taken by this Court. Petitioner No.2 is the husband of petitioner No.1 who is a finance professional. He is not involved in any politics or activism. First Information Report vide Crime No. 68 of 2018 was registered with Muktainagar Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 451, 452, 146, 116, 120-B and 186 of Indian Penal Code against petitioners on the basis of the information lodged by respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 had alleged in the said FIR that, petitioners had conspired and directed one Kalpana Inamdar to commit trespass into the office of respondent No.3 at Muktainagar and Mumbai in order to frame him under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, for which complaint would have been filed. The petitioners contend that, bare perusal of the said FIR would reveal that, the basic ingredients of any of the offences have not been complied with.

3. The petitioners contend that, petitioner No.1 had come across various documents and land records which show that, respondent No.3 who was the elected official and the then Minister in the Government of Maharashtra had collected huge properties and assets, either in his name or that of his family member's name, beyond the legal known source of income. When petitioner No.1 insisted that, investigation should be made in respect of the said disproportionate assets, respondent No.3 sought protection by the political establishment despite there was irrefutable information and paper. Directions were sought by the petitioner No.1 in her Public Interest Litigation regarding investigation and this Court at Principal seat has directed the State Government to file a detailed reply. Thereafter, with malafide intention the respondent No.3 has filed cases for defamation against the petitioner No.1. Even derogatory language was used by the respondent No.3 in public as against the petitioner No.1. She has also received threats from gangsters restraining her from pursuing the cases against the respondent No.3. Petitioners further contend that, Miss. Kalpana Inamdar worked as a liaison officer for Mr. Chagan Bhujbal against whom also the petitioner No.1 had filed Public Interest Litigation for disproportionate assets. Said Kalpana Inamdar had approached petitioner No.1 on 02-12-2014 and had offered her monitory consideration for the withdrawal of the case which was filed by the petitioner No.1 against Mr. Chagan Bhujbal. Immediately the petitioner No.1 had given a tweet. Thereafter also immediately the news channel had taken her reaction on the said tweet. Thereafter on 27th March, the petitioner No.1 and said Inamdar had heated debate on the news channel. Thereafter on 09th March, respondent No.3 was called for questioning by Anti Corruption Bureau, Nashik on disproportionate asset case filed by petitioner No.1. In the light of all these events Miss. Kalpana Inamdar, with malafied intention, came with a fabricated story that, petitioners had asked her to plant money in the office of respondent No.3 in Jalgaon as well as Mumbai. She had held the press conference on 27th March, and thereafter a legal notice was also sent to the petitioner No.1. Respondent No.3 on the basis of said press conference of Miss. Inamdar has lodged the said report.