(1) CRI.APP. 2971.2007+1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2971 OF 2007 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3150 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2971 OF 2007 Ganesh S/o Jairam Mukkawar .. Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and anr. .. Respondents ... Mr. M.R. Challani, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. B.J. Sonawane, APP for the respondent-State Mr. V.S. Tanwade, Advocate for the respondent no.2 ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 26TH OCTOBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. By this Application, the applicant seeks quashing of the FIR no. 108 of 2007 registered at Osmanabad Police Station for the offence under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The Application does not show that chargesheet has been already filed against the applicant and he is required to face the prosecution. It appears that chargesheet has been filed against (2) CRI.APP. 2971.2007+1 him and that charge is also framed by the Special Court at Osmanabad vide Exhibit 8 in Special (Atro) case no. 22 of 2010. 3. The applicant's case is that false FIR is filed by the respondent no.2 due to personal vendetta. It is contended that husband of the respondent no.2 was suspended and, therefore, the respondent no.2 has made false allegations against the applicant. 4. The FIR purports to show that the suspension of the husband of the respondent no.2 was revoked and quashed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and, therefore, he attempted to seek reinstatement. The respondent no.2 alleged that on 9.8.2007 she alongwith her husband and two woman lawyers went to the Office of the applicant with a request to allow him to join the duty. At that time, the applicant allegedly was annoyed and used the insulting words. He did not allow the husband of the respondent no.2 to join the duty notwithstanding directions of the Director of Ayurved Sanchalanalaya and that of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. (3) CRI.APP. 2971.2007+1 5. At the premature stage, without recording of evidence, it is difficult to say that the accusations made by the respondent no.2 are outcome of concoction made by her due to the grievances against the applicant. It is well known principle that enmity or grudge is a double edged weapon. The applicant may have entertained grudge against husband of the respondent no.2 due to alleged complaint made by him regarding insult to the National Flag. At the premature stage, without trial of the relevant issues, it will not be appropriate to quash the FIR and the proceedings arising out of the same only on basis of the contentions of the applicant that the contents of the FIR are based on concocted story. It is well settled that the Application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be granted only because it is based on certain defences available to the accused (applicant). 6. In this view of the matter, the Application is dismissed. The observations made in this order be not considered while deciding any other matter on merits. (4) CRI.APP. 2971.2007+1 7. In view of dismissal of the Criminal Application no. 2971 of 2007, Criminal Application no. 3150 of 2010, seeking stay to the proceedings, also stand disposed of. Sd/- [V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp