(1)

criappln-68.2022.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.68 OF 2022

Sopan Ramnath Kasar

Applicant

Versus

1.

The State of Maharashtra

2.

Balasaheb Soma Jadhav

Respondents

...

Mr. N.L. Choudhari, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for respondent No. 1 – State.

...

CORAM :

V.K. JADHAV AND

SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.

DATED :

31^st March 2022.

ORDER (Per Sandipkumar C. More, J.) :

1.

Heard.

2.

The applicant in this application is seeking

quashing of F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 127/2020 registered

with Rahuri Police Station, District Ahmednagar for the

offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal

Code and under Sections 3 (1) (r) and 3 (1) (s) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act.

(2)

criappln-68.2022.odt

3.

In the aforesaid F.I.R. lodged by the present

respondent No.2, the allegations are made against the present

applicant by respondent No. 2 about

his

wrongful

appointment on the post of Registrar, Mahatma Phule Krishi

Vidyapeeth, Rahuri. Respondent No. 2, as regards the said

appointment, which according to him was wrongfully made,

had also fled complaints to Government from time to time.

He had also made complaint against the applicant before the

Minister of Agriculture, and therefore, the applicant was

knowing respondent No. 2. Further, the applicant was also

aware of the caste of respondent No. 2. On 11.01.2020 at

about 11.00 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. there was one function named

“Magowa” at Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri and the Agriculture

and Revenue Minister was to attend the said function.

Therefore, respondent No. 2 had gone to the guest house of

said Krishi Vidyapeeth for giving representation to the said

Minister as to how the applicant was appointed wrongly on

the post of Registrar. However, when respondent No. 2 went

to the said guest house, the applicant was already present

there. Then on noticing presence of respondent No.2, the

applicant approached him and angrily asked respondent No.2

as to why he made complaint against him. The applicant also

asked respondent No. 2 to leave the said place. Further, the

(3)

criappln-68.2022.odt

applicant also insulted respondent No. 2 by referring his

caste. As the applicant was intending to drive respondent

No.2 from the said place, he shouted slogans against the

applicant. At the time of that entire incident some journalists

were also present there. It is also alleged in the F.I.R. that

earlier also the applicant, while speaking to one journalist

Ashish Dhage on phone, had insulted respondent No. 2 by

referring his caste.

4.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that

the aforesaid crime has been registered against the applicant

only to harass and blackmail him. It is, in fact, registered

with malafde intention and on the basis of false, imaginary

and frivolous contents. He further submits that respondent

No.2 has misused the provisions of law only to level baseless

charges against the applicant and that too belatedly, after

about 47 days. Besides, the learned Counsel for the

applicants also relied on the following judgments :

(i)

Arun Ambadas Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra

MANU/MH/2485/2017

(ii)

Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand & another

AIR 2020 SC 5584

(4)

criappln-68.2022.odt

5.

In the judgment delivered by this Court in the case

of Arun Ambadas Pawar vs State of Maharashtra (supra), it

has been observed as follows in para 16.

“16.

Therefore, in the light of discussion in

foregoing paragraphs, we are of the opinion that,

considering the allegations against the Applicant it

cannot be said that the Applicant intended or

abetted or instigated the deceased Dnyanoba to

commit suicide. Unless there is clear mes rea to

commit an offence or active act or direct act which

led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no

option or the