IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

87. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 816 OF 2020 Saddam Shah Khalil Shah Fakir age 30 years occupation business R/o village Kingaon (Kh.)

Taluka Yawal District Jalgaon ...Petitioner VERSUS

1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai

2. The Director General of Police, Department of Anti Corruption, Maharashtra State, Sarpoch Khanawala Road, Worli, Mumbai.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nashik Range, Nashik Nashik Municipal Corporation, Bhaji Market Building, Sharnapur Road, Nashik – 422 005

4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bueau, Jalgaon, Collector Office, near Akashwani Chowk, at Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon.

5. The Superintendent of Police, near Main Road, infront of S.T. Bus Stand at Jalgaon District Jalgaon. ...Respondents Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate, i./by Mr. V.R. Dhorde, Advocate for petitioner Mr. S.J. Salgare, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondents/State.

C ORAM : T.V. NALAWADE &

M.G. SEWLIKAR , JJ.

DATE : 13th October, 2020 J U D G M E N T (PER : T.V. NALAWADE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal.

2. The present proceeding is filed to challenge the order of the learned Director General of Police, Maharashtra State, dated 5^th October 2020 by which the sanction is refused for the prosecution of one Police Officer under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Direction is also claimed against the respondents to accord the sanction.

3. The submissions made and the record of the investigation which was made available by the Anti-Corruption Bureau alongwith its say show that Police Inspector Shri Baliram Hire, who was attached to Yaval Police Station District Jalgaon, was involved in one Anti-Corruption case and the sanction under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was sought by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Jalgaon. Sanction was sought against two constables also, who were working under P.I. Hire. Sanction is given to prosecute these two Constables but it is refused in respect of P.I.

Hire.

4. The record shows that it is the contention of original complainant, present petitioner that P.I. Hire visited the residential place of the petitioner on 12/01/2017 and he took the petitioner to Police Station, Yaval by saying that one lady had given report against him. It is contended that when he entered the police station, he noticed that said lady and her parents were present in the police station. It is contended that P.I. Hire then told him in the police station that allegations were made by the lady against the petitioner that the petitioner had raped her, had committed the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. It is the contention of the petitioner that threat was given to him by P.I. Hire that crime will be registered for offence punishable U/S. 376 of I.P.C. against him on the basis of report of aforesaid lady if he does not give Rs. 5,00,000/- to P.I. Hire. It is the contention of the petitioner that he said that he cannot give such big amount and after negotiations, P.I. Hire agreed to accept Rs. 3,00,000/- to see that no crime is registered for offence of rape. It is the contention that from 12/01/2017 till the evening of

13/01/2017 he was detained by P.I. Hire and two Constables Kailas Ingle and Kiran Thakare. It is the contention that he was taken by Constables Ingale and Thakare to their residential quarter on 12/01/2017. It is his contention that he was taken to AXIS Bank, Jalgaon, from where the petitioner withdrew amount of Rs. 40,000/- and he gave it to these persons. It is contended that when he was brought by these three persons to Yawal police station, P.I. Hire took over his mobile handset and asked him to collect the remaining amount. It is contended that when he requested the two constables to return the mobile handset on 13/01/2017, the two Consta