JUDGMENT :

Madhav J. Jamdar, J.

1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally forthwith by consent of learned counsel of all the parties.

2. In both the above Criminal Applications, the power of this Court under Section 482 is invoked seeking that First Information Report – Crime No.0251 dated 27.04.2019 registered by the M.I.D.C. Police Station, Nagpur for the offences under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1) (xiv)of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “said Act of 1989”) be quashed. The said F.I.R. has been registered on the basis of complaint made by the respondent No.2. As the First Information Report sought to be quashed in both the applications is one and the same, both the criminal applications are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. As far as Criminal Application No.477 of 2019 is concerned, the applicant No.1 is the Principal of Rajiv Gandhi College of Engineering, Wanadongri, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as “said college”), the applicant No.2 is the Head of the Mechanical Department of the said college and the applicant No.3 was working as Administrative Officer in the said college from 24.05.2013 to 03.09.2018 and had discharged his duties as Presenting Officer in the departmental enquiry held against the respondent No.2. The applicant in Criminal Application No.570/2019 was appointed as the Enquiry Officer in the said departmental enquiry held against the respondent No.2.

4. We have heard Shri Sunil Manohar, learned Senior counsel in Criminal Application No.477/2019 and Shri P. D. Meghe, learned counsel for the applicant in Criminal Application No.570/2019, Shri A. V. Palshikar, learned A.P.P. for the respondent No.1 in both the matters and Shri B. J. Lonare, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 in both the matters.

5. Shri Sunil Manohar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicants in Criminal Application No.477/2019, submitted that the applicant No.1 in said application is working as Principal and applicant No.2 is working as Head of the Mechanical Department of the said college respectively, and applicant No.3 was working as Administrative Officer at the relevant time and discharged his duties as Presenting Officer in the departmental enquiry held against the respondent No.2. It is the submission of the learned Senior counsel that as actions were taken by respective applicants including issuance of the show cause notices dated 10.07.2017, 29.07.2017, 31.07.2017 to the respondent No.2, as his explanation was not found satisfactory, the competent Authority decided to hold enquiry against the respondent No.2 and as charge-sheet dated 21.08.2017 was issued to the respondent No.2 by the Appointing Authority and as applicant No.3 acted as Presenting Officer, and the applicant in Criminal Application 570/2019 acted as the Enquiry Officer, after conducting the enquiry, the Enquiry Report dated 14.09.2018 was submitted to the competent Authority and as per said Enquiry Report charges are held to be proved and therefore during this period to pressurize the applicants and the competent Authority, complaint was made by the respondent No.2 on or about 31.10.2017 to the respondent No.1 making totally false allegations against the applicants and the Enquiry Officer. It is further submission of the learned Senior counsel that the respondent No.1 after holding enquiry came to the conclusion that the said complaint dated 31.10.2017 was without any substance and therefore, did not take further action. It is further submission of the learned Senior counsel that the respondent No.2 in order to pressurize the applicants and the Enquiry Officer and dissuade them from proceeding further against him on the basis of the aforesaid departmental enquiry made a complaint dated 27.04.2019 to the respondent No.1 making totally false allegations and on the basis of such false complaint, the respondent No.1 has registered the First Information Report – Crime N