The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to intentionally cause disaffection towards the Government among the members of a Police force under section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922.

JUDGMENT :

T.V. NALAWADE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal. The learned APP represented respondent No. 4 informant, who was police officer.

2. In F.I.R. given on 2.1.2020 to Tuljapur Police Station, District Osmanabad, it is the contention of respondent No. 4 that he was working in Tuljapur Police Station as Police Inspector from 2.11.2019. It is his contention that he and Sub Divisional Police Officer Shri. Dilip Tiprase had taken steps to curb illegal activities which were going on in the past within local jurisdiction of Tuljapur Police Station. It is contended that he was not succumbing to pressure of anybody and due to that present applicant has made false allegations against him and Tiprase by sending representation to his superior officer and by publishing news in local newspaper.

3. It is the contention of respondent No. 4 that he came across the news item published in ‘Khadtar Pravas’ newspaper that a crime of rape was registered against him on the basis of report given by a lady police officer. It is contended that even when ‘B’ summary report was filed in the said crime such news was published. It is contended that when he was taking steps to curb illegal activities, in the news, it was published that he had joined hands with the persons involved in illegal activities and he was getting share in the money made by those persons. It is contended that in news item it was published that he had joined hands with thieves also and he was getting 50% share in the property stolen by the thieves. It is contended that in the news item it was published that for settlement of the dispute between the parties, he was extracting money from both the sides.

4. It is the contention of respondent No. 4 in F.I.R. that he had put in 28 years of service and he had worked with honesty and integrity throughout. It is his contention that due to the news item he is feeling disturbed and depressed as the news item has defamed him in the society. It is contended that it is the applicant at whose instance the news item was published and so, he has committed the offence punishable under section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) and section 500 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C. for short). On the basis of this report, the crime at C.R. No. 2/2019 was registered against the applicant and during pendency of the matter charge-sheet was filed for these offences.

5. This Court has carefully gone through the papers filed by both the sides. The learned APP opposed the present proceeding.

6. The papers contain record like remand reports. That record shows that in the aforesaid crime, present applicant was arrested on 9.1.2020 and he was produced before J.M.F.C. at 7.00 p.m. of 10.1.2020. The papers show that applicant made allegations of ill-treatment, assault against the police officers. The papers show that magisterial custody was granted on 10.1.2020 till 11.1.2020 and the applicant was referred for medical examination. The papers show that medical examination revealed that there were four injuries like contusions on different parts of the body and the age of the injury was within 12 to 14 hours. He was examined on 11.1.2020. On the basis of this record, explanation was also called by the J.M.F.C. of concerned. The request made for police custody on 11.1.2020, but this request was rejected and on that day, Magistrate released the applicant on bail.

7. The record shows that on 2.3.2018 one lady police officer had given report against respondent No. 4 that he had sexually exploited her and he had committed the offence punishable under section 376 (2) (G) of I.P.C. The crime at C.R. No. 79/2018 was registered on the basis of said report in Ashti Police Station, District Beed. It was registered for offence punishable under section 3(2)(5) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act al