Madhukar Narayan Yelane vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2493 Bom

                                                    1              26-J-APL-761-14.odt

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

             CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 761 OF 2014

 Madhukar Narayan Yelane,
 Aged about : 48 years,
 Occ : Teacher, R/o 662,
 Near Datta Mandir, Sudampuri,
 Sakkardara, Nagpur - 9.                                     ... APPLICANT

                               VERSUS

 1. The State of Maharashtra,
    Through its Police Station Officer,
    P. S. Lakkadganj, Nagpur.

 2. Mrs. Karishma Govind Galani,
      Aged about : 42 yrs.,
      R/o 404 Himalaya,
      Ambedkar Chowk,
      C.A. Road, Nagpur.                                      ... NON-APPLICANTS
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri N. M. Kolhe, Advocate for applicant.
 Ms. Mayuri Deshmukh, Additional Public Prosecutor for non-
 applicant No.1-State.
 Shri Pramod Kamble, Advocate h/f Shri S.M.Patrikar, Advocate for
 non-applicant No.2.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                CORAM: Z.A. HAQ & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED : 08/02/2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)

1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the First Information

Report No.390/2013 dated 08/12/2013 under Section 354(A)(1)

of the Indian Penal Code.

2 26-J-APL-761-14.odt

2. The First Information Report came to be registered

against the applicant with the accusation that the applicant had

offended modesty of the non-applicant No.2 at a place where the

applicant and the non-applicant No.2 are working. It is further

alleged that the non-applicant No.2 made a complaint about the

said incident to the Principal of the School, but she did not pay

heed to the complaint of the non-applicant No.2 and therefore, the

non-applicant No.2 filed First Information Report against the

applicant.

3. The applicant has challenged the registration of First

Information Report by filing present application. This Court on

20/12/2014 issued notice to the non-applicants and by way of

ad-interim relief, it was directed that the charge sheet shall not be

filed in the matter without leave of this Court. This Court on

18/02/2015 issued Rule and continued interim relief granted

earlier.

4. The non-applicant No.1 has filed reply and has stated

that there is sufficient material available with the Prosecution

Agency to prove charges against applicant and the charge sheet in

3 26-J-APL-761-14.odt

the present crime is also ready. It is, therefore, prayed that the

criminal application may kindly be dismissed.

5. We have carefully considered the contents of First

Information Report and the statements recorded by the

prosecution. The statements which are recorded by the

prosecution are of the Director of the Management where the

applicant and the non-applicant No.2 are working, the Principal of

the said school and the teacher who was present on the said day of

incident. After having considered the statements of Director,

Principal and Teacher, it appears that all of them have supported

accused by stating that on 07/12/2013 which is alleged date of

incident, the accused has not offended modesty of the non-

applicant No.2. On the contrary, it is the non-applicant No.2 who

has abused the applicant.

6. Learned Advocate for the applicant invited our

attention to the complaint filed by the management of the said

school with the Police Inspector, Police Station, Lakkadganj,

Nagpur on 19/12/2013 wherein the Secretary of the said school

had stated that the non-applicant No.2 has habit of making false

complaints against the employees working in the said institution.

4 26-J-APL-761-14.odt

In the said complaint, several instances of the complaints filed by

the non-applicant No.2 against the employees of the institution are

stated. One of the complaint which was filed by the non-applicant

No.2 was against the then Secretary Shri Govindrao Shrawanji

Umredkar on 03/10/2008. It is stated that due to filing of said

false complaint, Shri Govindrao Shrawanji Umredkar suffered

heart attack and expired.

7. In the backdrop of the statements of witnesses

recorded by the Investigating Agency and the complaint filed by

the management with Police Station, Lakkadganj, we are satisfied

that the prosecution against the applicant is not legitimate a

prosecution. We are, therefore, satisfied that the continuation of

the prosecution would amount to abuse of process of Court.

8. We, therefore, pass the following order :-

The First Information Report No.390/2013 dated 08/12/2013 under Section 354(A)(1) of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside.

9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

                      JUDGE                       JUDGE

 Choulwar