1 crieven471.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 471 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant Vs. Virendranath Bhagwatprasad Tiwari ..Respondent Mr. A.S. Shitole, APP for the Applicant-State. Mr. Virendranath Bhagwatprasad Tiwari- Respondent in person present. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 13TH OCTOBER, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard learned APP and the party in person-respondent. The respondent is a practicing Advocate and also a part time Professor in Sidharth Law College since 1995. Original complainant Smt. Salunke was also a Professor in the same college. Respondent had lodged a complaint against Smt.Salunke before the learned Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade Mumbai vide CC No.1/1 and R-2007 dated 22nd January, 2007. The learned Judge dismissed the said complaint. Hence, Smt.Salunke filed proceedings claiming infraction of Section 3(1)(ix) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) and also Protection of Civil Rights Act vide Spl. Case/NO : 9/2007. The principal ground against the respondent is, in respect of the complainant being a 2 crieven471.11.sxw member of SC/ST community he had made a false representation before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, a public servant and caused harassment to the member of SC / ST by taking advantage of his legal authority. Her report to police did not yield any result. Hence, she filed CR No.343/2007. She claimed to be a Hindu Chambhar. 2. The learned Special Judge has elaborately discussed history of litigation between Smt.Salunke and the Respondent. In paragraph 26, learned Judge has observed as under : "So, mainly the present applicant/accused who was complainant before the Ld. MM lodged the complaint on the basis of appointment letter of Chitra Salunke. The appointment letter, which is filed on record as per Ex.A clearly shows that as per clause no.2 : "The post is reserved for SC/ST/DT/NT since you do not belong to the said category, you are appointed on temporary basis against the reserved post. You shall not have any claim on the said post in future." So, on the basis of this appointment letter, the present applicant/accused lodged complaint before the LD. MM. And I do not find that the present applicant/accused had given false and frivolous information to the public servant i.e. The Ld. MM and thereby he abused the public servant to use his lawful power i.e. to make inquiry i.e. investigation and which caused annoyance to the member of SC/ST." 3. There was nothing that Respondent gave a false information to the learned Judge. Based on the said appointment letter, the respondent lodged 3 crieven471.11.sxw complaint before the learned M.M. He did not verify the caste status of the complainant Smt. Salunke. In the fact situation, it should not be said that the respondent has abused the process of the Court as he has basically relied on the appointment letter issued in favour of the complainant Smt. Salunke. The finding recorded by the learned Special Judge while discharging the respondent does not call for any interference. The present Revision Application moved by the State is rejected. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. )