Advocates:
['J M GANDHI', 'SAGAR K SHUGWANISAGAR K SHUGWANI', 'MISS A P GUPTA', 'SAGAR K SHUGWANI', 'APP', '', 'ANIL S SONARE', 'SHARANG A SONAK', 'FOR R-']

Judgment

1

jg.apl 404.2019.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 404 OF 2019

Rajnikant S/o Daluram Borele,

Age : 43 yrs, Occ : Social Worker,

RTI Activist and Whistle Blower

R/o : Supuch Chhaya, Kiran Factory Road,

Rani Laxmibai Road, Akhada, Pandharkawda,

Dist : Yavatmal.

…. Applicant

- Versus -

(1)State of Maharashtra,

Through Police Station Officer,

P. S. Yavatmal, Tah. & Dist : Yavatmal.

(2)Tukaram s/o Shankarrao Gedam

Aged about : 63 yrs, Occu : Service,

Sub-Divisional Police Officer,

Pandharkawda, Dist : Yavatmal.

.... Non-applicants /

Respondents

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. J. M. Gandhi, Advocate for the applicant

Mr. S. S. Doifode, APP for the State/non-applicant 1

Mr. A. S. Sonare, Advocate for non-applicant 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : ROHIT B. DEO, J.

DATED : 11^TH FEBRUARY, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard.

2.

With consent, the application is finally heard at the

Amended as

per Court

order dtd.

14.10.2019

Judgment

2

jg.apl 404.2019.odt

admission stage.

3.

The applicant Mr. Rajnikant Daluram Borele, who shall be

hereinafter referred to as the accused, is facing trial for offences

punishable under Sections 189 and 385 of the Indian Penal Code

(IPC) in Summary Criminal Case 1833/2011 which is pending in the

Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 5, Yavatmal.

4.

The final report under Section 173 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code) is submitted consequent to the

culmination of the investigation in connection with report dated

24-7-2011 lodged by Mr. Tukaram s/o Shankarrao Gedam who then

was the Sub Divisional Police Officer at Pandharkawda, District

Yavatmal. The substratum of the report is that the accused

approached Mr. Shalikram Baliram Bharadi who then was working as

District Supply Officer, Yavatmal and after engaging in a preliminary

conversation demanded money from the said officer under the threat

of approaching High Court and exposing “misdeeds” (the word used

in vernacular is “dkGs csjs”), the accused unsucessfully endevoured to

persuade the learned Magistrate to discharge him from the offences

under Sections 189 and 385 of the IPC. The accused then approached

Judgment

3

jg.apl 404.2019.odt

the learned Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Criminal Revision 5/2018

reiterating that even if, the entire material in the final report is

accepted at face value, no offences punishable under Sections 189

and 385 of the IPC are made out. The submission did not find favour

with the learned Sessions Judge and the revision came to be

dismissed vide judgment dated 8-1-2019. Being aggrieved, the

accused is invoking the inherent powers of this Court.

5.

The short question which falls for consideration is

whether, taken at face value, the material in the record of the trial

Court warrants a trial ?

6.

Before I advert to the material on the record, it would be

apposite to note that the trial is a summons trial and, therefore, the

application seeking discharge preferred by the accused, was clearly

misconceived. Such an application could have been entertained, if at

all, under Section 258 of the Code. The revisional Court rightly noted

that the application seeking discharge was not tenable. I am,

however, inclined to consider the question raised on merits.

Assuming that the accused approached the learned Magistrate quoting

a wrong provision, the inherent power of this Court is wide enough to

Judgment

4

jg.apl 404.2019.odt

interfere, if this Court finds that continuation of the proceedings shall

amount to an abuse of process of law.

7.

The alleged incident occurred on 7-3-2009 in the official

chamb