Bombay High Court

Mukesh Kumar Godara vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 21 September, 2017

Bench: S.S. Shinde

                                                                   cwp768.14
                                        1


                                        
      IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD


              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.768 OF 2014


 Mukesh Kumar Godara,
 Age-31 years, Occu:Service,
 Working as Branch Manager,
 with the Bank of Maharashtra,
 Umberkhed Branch, Tq-Chalisgaon, 
 Dist-Jalgaon.
                                 ...PETITIONER 
        VERSUS             

 1) The State of Maharashtra,
    Through Police Inspector,
    Begumpura Police Station,
    Aurangabad, at Aurangabad,

 2) Manisha Prabhakar Ahire,
    Age-33 years, Occu:Service,
    C/o-Ashok Patil, Lalmandi,
    Begumpura, Tq. & Dist-Aurangabad.
    
                                 ...RESPONDENTS

                      ...
    Mr. Dhananjay B. Thoke Advocate for Petitioner.
    Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1. 
                      ...

               CORAM:  S.S. SHINDE AND
                       A.M. DHAVALE, JJ.

DATE : 21ST SEPTEMBER, 2017

cwp768.14

JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:

1. This Petition is filed praying therein

to quash and set aside the First Information

Report bearing Crime No.I-80 of 2014 registered

with Begamupra police station, Aurangabad for the

offence punishable under Section 354-D(2) of the

Indian Penal Code.

2. It is the case of the Petitioner that he

is working as Branch Manager with the Bank of

Maharashtra, Umberkhed Branch, Tq-Chalisgaon,

Dist-Jalgaon since 28th October, 2013. In the

capacity of the Manager, the Petitioner received

phone call from the firm which is being run in the

name and style as "Sign N Quality", Aurangabad,

which provides sign boards to the said Bank. The

said firm claimed that they are having tie-up with

the said bank in respect of supply of sign boards.

Since the Petitioner was having power and

authority to place such order, the Petitioner

cwp768.14

placed the order of sign boards which were

subsequently delivered at the Branch at Umberkhed.

After receipt of the said delivery, it was

revealed that the sign boards so supplied were not

as per the required specification. Thereafter, the

said firm raised the bill to the tune of

Rs.20,700/-, which according to the Petitioner was

too high and therefore the Petitioner disputed the

said bill. Thereafter the informant, who claims to

be handling the position as a senior tele-calling

assistant, used to call the Petitioner in respect

of the said bill. The Petitioner was disputing the

said bill, as the consignment was not worth more

than three thousand Rupees. The Petitioner in the

capacity of the branch manager of the said bank,

was responsible and answerable for said

expenditure and therefore he refused to fall in

line to the demands made by the informant. The

informant used to call the Petitioner since from

December, 2013 and onwards till the date of

registration of the crime. It is part of record

cwp768.14

that the Petitioner never called back the

informant at any point of time in the past, and it

is the informant who all the while used to make

the phone calls to the Petitioner in respect of

the arrears of the said bill. Consequently, on

21st May, 2014, Respondent No.2/informant lodged

the complaint with Begampura police station,

Aurangabad, and on the basis of said complaint

the Crime No.I-80 of 2014 came to be registered

for the offence punishable under Section 354-D(2)

of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that the

informant is working with the said firm since last

five years on the position of senior tele-calling

assistant. As a part of her duty, she made a phone

call on 21st May, 2014 at about 4.48 p.m. from her

cell No.8237050250 on the land line Number of the

said Branch bearing No.02589-240224. After making

the phone call, the informant asked for the

payment of the arrears of the bill which was

cwp768.14

pending since long. It is alleged that at that

time the Petitioner/accused stalked the informant

and used filthy language. Not only this, the

Petitioner/accused also tried to seek the sexual

favour from the informant. Thereafter the said

lady also made the phone call. At that time, as

per the version of the informant, the phone was

picked up by person namely Deshmukh and he replied

that they have not placed any such order and the

signature appearing on the stamp is false and

forged one. On the basis of said allegations, the

F.I.R. in question seems to have been lodged with

Begampura police station for the above referred

offence.

4. It is the case of the Petitioner that the

Petitioner and the said company are having the

series of exchange of mails, by and between them

after the receipt of the bill dated 6th December,

2013. There is exchange of E-mails from 29th

January, 2014 to 14th February, 2014, between the

cwp768.14

Petitioner and the said firm as regards the issue

of the bill. In the mail dated 14th February, 214,

the said firm also threatened that they would be

lodging complaint with the Banking Ombudsman and

would also issue legal notice from the Court.

5. It is the further case of the Petitioner

that on the date of registration of the crime

itself, one Sub-Inspector namely Subhash Hivrale

attached to the Begumpura Police Station made a

phone call to the petitioner and informed him in

respect of registration of the said crime, and

also made another phone call on 27th May, 2014 and

threatened the petitioner to settle the dues of

the said Company. The Petitioner further submits

that on 1st July, 2014, the said Sub Inspector

threatened the petitioner and asked him to settle

the dues of said Company and also demanded the

bribe of Rs.50,000/- for not arresting the

petitioner. As the Petitioner was not intending to

pay the bribe, the matter was reported to the

cwp768.14

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Jalgaon. Thereafter, said ACB Unit

conducted the pre-trap panchnama and laid the trap

at Chalisgaon. But the said Sub Inspector got clue

of the ACB trap and ran away and hence the trap

was failed.

6. We have heard learned counsel appearing

for the Petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing

for the State.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the

Petitioner referring to the grounds taken in the

Petition submits that, no prima facie case is made

out on the basis of the allegations made in the

F.I.R. and an ingredients of Section 354-D(2) of

the Indian Penal Code do not get attracted. The

entire prosecution is motivated and has been

initiated for wreaking the vengeance on the

Petitioner. Thus, on the face of it, the

continuance of the said prosecution would be

cwp768.14

amounting to abuse of the process of law.

. Learned counsel further submitted that

conspiracy has been hatched by the concerned Sub

Inspector in connivance with the informant for

recovery of the illegal amount from the

Petitioner. The F.I.R. is false, vexatious and

concocted one and has been lodged just to recover

the illegal amount of so-called consignment. It is

submitted that, even if the facts stated in the

F.I.R. are taken as it is, the offence under

Section 354-D(2) of the Indian Penal Code is not

made out. The allegations levelled in the said

F.I.R. do not in any way, amounts to monitoring

the use by a woman of the inter-net, E-mail or any

other form of electronic communication. The

allegations made in the First Information Report

are so absurd and inherently improbable on the

basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a

just conclusion that there is a sufficient ground

for proceeding against the Petitioner. Lastly,

cwp768.14

learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner

submits that the Petition deserves to be allowed.

8. On the other hand, learned A.P.P.

appearing for the State invites our attention to

the allegations in the First Information Report

and also the investigation papers. He submits that

upon reading the allegations in its entirety,

alleged offences have been disclosed.

9. We have given anxious consideration to

the submissions of the learned counsel appearing

for the Petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing

for the State. With their able assistance, we have

perused the pleadings in the Petition, grounds

taken therein, annexures thereto and in particular

the averments in the First Information Report.

10. It would be apt to reproduce the relevant

allegations in the First Information Report, which

reads as under:-

cwp768.14

"fn- [email protected]@2014 jksth la/;kdkGh 4-48 oktrk eh ek>s ?kjh

vlrkauk vkeps c¡zWp eWustj uks eqds'k dqekj mej[ksMk 'kk[kk Cka ¡Wad

vkWQ egkjk"Vª rk- pkGhlxkao] ft- tGxkao ;k fBdk.kh eh

8237050250 ;ko:u tGxkao P;k yW.M ykbZu uacj

02589&240224 o lkbZu cksMZP;k isesaV lkBh dkWy dsyk gksrk] isesaV

djr ulY;kus vkEgh R;kauk osGksosGh lj vki.k isesaV djk vls eh

R;kauk EgVY;kus R;kauh eyk myV vls Eg.kkys dh rqe pksj gks

rqEgkjh daiuh pksj gS vkSj rqe xanh ukyh ds fdMs gks rqe esjs lkFk

;gkW ij vk vkSj ,d jkr esjs lkFk xqtkj eS oks Hkh isesaV nsrk gqa

vkSj lkbZu cksMZ dk Hkh isesaV nsrk gqa A vls Eg.kqu yxsp Qksu dV

dsyk"- (Underlines added)