Ganesh Shamrao Sapkale vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 6910 Bom

                                                               Cri.W.P.No. 1167/2010
                                               1


                     IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
                 APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1167 OF 2010

          Ganesh Shamrao Sapkale,
          Age 43 years, Occu. Service,
          R/o. At Post Kanalda,
          Tal. and Dist. Jalgaon.                            ....Petitioner.

                  Versus

1.        The State of Maharashtra
          Through Taluka Police Station,
          Jalgaon.

2.        Mango Ramu Solunke,
          Age 39 years, Occu. Service,
          Gramsevak (V.D.O.),
          Fatehpur Grampanchayat,
          Tal. Jamner, District Jalgaon.              ....Respondents.


Mr. Pramod P. Dhorde, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. V.S. Badakh, APP for respondent No. 1/State.


                                   CORAM       :   T.V. NALAWADE AND
                                                   S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.

                                   DATED   :       September 07, 2017.


JUDGMENT : [PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.]

.                 The petition is filed for relief of quashing of F.I.R. of C.R.

No. 148/2010 registered in Jalgaon Taluka Police Station, Jalgaon for

the offences punishable under sections 353 etc. of Indian Penal Code

['IPC' for short]. Heard both the sides.

2. The crime was registered on the basis of report given by

Cri.W.P.No. 1167/2010

Village Development Officer in respect of incident dated 29.10.2010.

He has contended that the incident in question took place on

20.10.2010 between 9.30 a.m. and 12.00 noon in the office of

Village Panchayat Kanalda. He has made allegations that at the time

of incident when monthly meeting of Village Panchayat was going on

the present petitioner entered the office without taking permission

and started asking to put an end to meeting and he started asking to

call Gram Sabha. It is contended that when Sarpanch said that his

demand will be considered, but he should not interfere in the

monthly meeting, the petitioner picked up quarrel and started giving

threats. It is contended that the petitioner said that he had brought

15-20 persons to the office and he rushed at the first informant who

was public servant, gave abuses and he threw the record of monthly

meeting and also gave threat to the first informant. This incident

was witnessed by Village Sarpanch, Up-Sarpanch and other

Members of Village Panchayat. In respect of incident dated

29.10.2010 the report came to be given on 2.11.2010 and the crime

came to be registered. The submissions made and the record show

that now the chargesheet is filed for offences punishable under

sections 353, 342, 504, 506 etc. of IPC.

3. As the chargesheet is filed, the record of investigation is

available to this Court for perusal. The record contains statements of

Cri.W.P.No. 1167/2010

many witnesses and their versions are consistent with the contents

of F.I.R. Due to the specific allegations made in the F.I.R. and as

there are many statements of the eye witnesses, it cannot be said

that false allegations are made against the petitioner or that no

incident did take place or that no offence is made out.

4. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that

petitioner had given a representation to Village Sarpanch and the

first informant wanted that they should follow the proper procedure

for giving no objection of villagers in respect of auction of sand. He

submitted that petitioner had made allegation that on 15th August

2010 signatures of the villagers were obtained who had attended the

flag hoisting ceremony and false proceeding was created of Gram

Sabha. The learned counsel submitted that the representation was

given on 29.10.2010 and the incident is also shown to have taken

place on the same date. He then drew the attention of this Court to

the correspondence made by the first informant to the Commissioner

of Jalgaon, who is the employer of the first informant. He submitted

that in the letter sent to the Commissioner of Jalgaon Municipal

Corporation dated 29.10.2010 the first informant had informed the

Commissioner that already the report was given to police and the

crime was registered. He submitted that this circumstance shows

that false contentions were made against the petitioner and the

Cri.W.P.No. 1167/2010

complainant's side is bent upon to teach lesson to the petitioner and

only with that intention, false allegations are made against him. This

Court holds that the aforesaid contentions can only be treated as

defence and those contentions cannot be considered at this stage.

These contentions can only be raised during trial. So, this Court

holds that it cannot be said that there is no material at all against

the petitioner and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Interim relief, if

any, stands vacated. Rule stands discharged.

       [S.M. GAVHANE, J.]                 [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]




ssc/