1 apl560.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 560 OF 2016
Sandeep Tukaram Pawar,
aged about 35 years, Occupation
Service, R/o Shefale, Tah. Atpadi,
District Sangli. ... APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra, through
Officer In-charge, Police Station,
Washim City, Tah. and District
Washim.
2. Baban s/o Waman Shelke,
aged about 32 years, R/o Kamath-
wada, Tah and District Washim. ... RESPONDENTS
....
Shri S.D. Chande, Advocate for the applicant.
Smt. S.S. Jachak, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.
Smt. Sonali Khobragade, Advocate holding for Shri R.J. Shinde, Advocate for
respondent No.2.
....
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATED : 03RD NOVEMBER, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Prasanna B. Varale, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The applicant is before this Court seeking quashment of First Information Report vide Crime No. 82/2016 dated 10.03.2016 registered at Police Station, Washim City, Washim under Section 306 of the Indian Penal ::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2017 01:31:49 ::: 2 apl560.16 Code against the applicant.
3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties.
4. Shri Chande, the learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was appointed as Block Development Officer in Panchayat Samiti, Malegaon, District Washim after completing his probation period vide order dated 25.06.2010 and since then the applicant is discharging his duties sincerely with his hard work. The learned Counsel further submits that the FIR was lodged at Police Station, Washim on an allegation that one Sanjay Shelke who was working in Panchayat Samiti, Malegaon, committed suicide on 10.03.2016. He submits that the matter was reported through the brother of deceased namely Baban Shelke. Shri Chande, the learned Counsel vehemently submits that in the FIR, neither the applicant is named nor any act is attributed to the applicant. There is only a vague statement that the deceased disclosed to his family members that his senior officers are harassing him. There is also reference to a diary in suicide note. The learned Counsel submits that taking the facts of the report on the face of it, the report fails to make out any case against the applicant to call for any action, least the action for committing an offence under the Indian Penal Code. The learned Counsel submits that the deceased who was working in the Panchayat Samiti failed to discharge his duties and in a proceeding initiated for disqualification by one of the members, the President of Zilla Parishad found that the deceased misled the authority in the order of the President ::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2017 01:31:49 ::: 3 apl560.16 dated 09.02.2016. It was observed by the President that the deceased was changing his stand from time to time and some times he was tendering the submission by misleading the authority or to suit the purpose. Thus, the President of Zilla Parishad arrived at a conclusion that the deceased was guilty of dereliction in his duties and issued direction to initiate a departmental enquiry against the deceased and also directed to take expeditious steps for suspension of the deceased.
5. Shri Chande, the learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the deceased was carrying a grudge against the senior officers in Zilla Parishad who were discharging their official duties. He then submits that in the FIR, the deceased named Extension Officers Palaskar and Ghuge and these two persons have already approached this Court by filing applications seeking quashment of FIR against them and by order dated 01.11.2017, this Court allowed the applications of these persons and the applicant is on better footings than these two persons. The learned Counsel also submits that the applicant was transferred from Malegaon Panchayat Samiti, District Washim by order dated 29th May, 2014 and is now working at Shefale, Tah. Atpadi, District Sangli. Thus, it is also the submission of learned Counsel that from year 2014 till the crime registered on 10.03.2016, the applicant had neither any concern nor had any authority to look into the affairs at Panchayat Samiti, Washim. Shri Chande, the learned Counsel submits that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others .v. Bhajanlal and others (reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC, 335), initiation of criminal prosecution and further continuation against the ::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2017 01:31:49 ::: 4 apl560.16 applicant is nothing else but an abuse of process of law.
6. Smt. Jachak, the learned APP vehemently opposes the application. Learned APP, by relying on the reply filed by the State, submits that a reference was made in the FIR. She further submits that though the name of the applicant is not appearing in the FIR, there is a reference of diary in the suicide note. She also submits that the diary was seized in the process of investigation. Learned APP submits that there is material against the applicant in the diary and the said material is made available for our perusal.
7. It is interesting to note that the statement made against the applicant is that the applicant obtained the signatures of deceased forcibly in a work at Jamkhed and because of this harassment, the deceased committed suicide. It is the submission of learned APP that this material is sufficient enough to implicate the applicant for calling criminal action for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. We are unable to accept the submission of learned APP for the simple reason that if a senior officer is asking junior officer to discharge some official duty then such an instance of senior officer can no way be treated as an ill intention or a personal bias. Least to say, it would lead to arrive at a conclusion that this material is sufficient now to show the mensrea in the matter. It would be out of place to state that while dealing with the other applications of other applicants, reliance was placed upon by the learned Counsel on the judgments of this Court as well as the apex Court and we find merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant. It may not be necessary ::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2017 01:31:49 ::: 5 apl560.16 to repeat those observations, suffice to say that the Division Bench of this Court specifically dealt with the aspect of insufficient material to show the mensrea and if the material is of such a nature then the initiation of the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings is certainly an abuse of process of law. The contra material stated above that the present applicant was transferred in the year 2014 and since then he had no occasion to play any official role in the affairs of Panchayat Samiti, Malegaon is also a fact which is of worth consideration.
8. Considering all these facts, we are of the opinion that the learned Counsel for the applicant has made out a case. The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (i).
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
*rrg.
::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2017 01:31:49 :::