Sandeep S/O Tukaram Pawar vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 8395 Bom

                                                  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

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

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

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

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.