cran3732.10 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3732 OF 2010 Mr. Vilas C. Jadhav ...Applicant Versus Chandrakant Shriram Sharma and another ...Respondents ..... Mr. D.B. Thoke, advocate for the applicant Mr. Vijay Sharma, advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. V.D. Rakh, A.P.P. for respondent No.2 ..... CORAM: A.V. POTDAR, J. DATED: 23RD MARCH, 2011 PER COURT:- 1 By the present criminal application, the applicant is praying for quashing of complaint No. 1292 of 2006 pending on the file of learned J.M.F.C. Pachora of which cognizance was taken and process was issued against the present applicant under Section 500 of I.P.C. 2 Heard counsel for the applicant. Perused the record. It appears that the present applicant is serving and was attached as police station in charge to Pachora police station, Tq. Pachora, District Jalgaon. It is urged across the bar that there are two fractions in the village cran3732.10 -2- Khadakdevla, who are interested in doing fishery business at the said village. A group known as Hivra Mata Macchimar Co-operative Society was issued licence by District Fisheries, Jalgaon for the period from 1.7.2005 to 30.6.2006. There is another group known as Bhill Samaj Sanghtana, who are disputing over the contract of business of fisheries granted in favour of Hivra Mata Macchimar Co-operative Society and the licence issued in their favour. It is further urged that there was problem of law and order in the said village because of activities of these two groups. In the meeting dated 4.12.2005 called at Pachora Police station, both parties have came to some amicable settlement that they will maintain peace and order in the village and will not make any dispute over any issue in the said village. It is further brought to the notice of the Court that on 5.12.2005 on the complaint of one Lotan Kashiram Koli, an offence came to be registered in Pachora police station vide C.R. No.622 of 2005 for the offence punishable under Section 500 of I.P.C. against one Kiran Krushnarao Patil and others. It appears from extract of the said complaint that there are allegations in the complaint against said Kiran Patil and others that at the material time said Kiran Patil and his associates under the influence of alcohol had abused the complainant and assaulted him. It appears that present applicant being in charge of police station has not taken proper steps in the said complaint. Hence, he put his grievance before his association. It appears that association known as Bhill cran3732.10 -3- Samaj Sanghtana has arranged for protest and morcha on 12.12.2005 and hand bills were distributed in the said village and sought proposed action. It appears that present applicant addressed a communication to Taluka Executive Magistrate vide his communication dated 17.12.2005 proposing to take action against two groups under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. In the said communication, names of both parties were mentioned. At Sr. No.2 in name of party No.2, name of complainant in S.T.C. No. 1292 of 2005 appears as Chandrakant Shriram Sharma and in the said communication he has referred to as one of the office bearer of Bhill Samaj Sanghtana. It is stated in the complaint that even though said Chandrakant Sharma has nothing to do with the association but his name had been arrayed in the said communication as office bearer of the said Sanghtana, this caused damage to his reputation as even though he is not connected with the said association. He was also not office bearer of the said association in the communication referred by the present applicant to Taluka Magistrate and hence he filed complaint. 3 Perusal of record shows that initially learned Magistrate has not taken cognizance of complaint, as the learned Magistrate was of the view that action taken by the present applicant was while performing his official duties and hence for taking action against the applicant sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is must. Learned Magistrate cran3732.10 -4- kept the complaint pending till the complainant receives the sanction for prosecuting the present applicant. It appears that said order was challenged in Criminal Revision Application No. 27 of 2008 before learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon. Learned Sessions Judge, vide his judgment and order dated 4.2.2009 had concluded that the impugned order in the said revision is partly allowed. So far as the stipulation in the impugned order that complaint would be kept pending till sanction is obtained by the complainant is set aside and learned Magistrate was directed to consider question about taking of cognizance. Thereafter, learned Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint lodged by said Chandrakant Sharma, who is respondent No.1 in the instant application. According to learned counsel for the applicant on bare perusal of contents of complaint, they are not sufficient to make out prima facie offence punishable under Section 500 of I.P.C. 4 What is damage to reputation is a question of fact to be decided when a respectable person is hurt by some reporting published against him but some may not hurt even if anything is published against him anywhere. In the application in hand, it is not under dispute that present applicant sent communication dated 17.12.2005 to Taluka Executive Magistrate to initiate proceedings of Chapter case under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. against two groups. In the said two groups name of complainant in S.T.C. No. 1292 of 2006 is referred it Sr No.2 cran3732.10 -5- and in the body of communication, he was referred as one of the office bearer of Bhill Samaj Sanghtana, an association with which he is not associated at all. Even though it is tried to urge that said communication was referred by the present applicant, who is in charge police station Officer on the basis of hand bills distributed in the village on which photographs of complainant appear. On bare perusal of hand bill, there appears photograph of the complainant Chandrakant Sharma. Hence, on the basis of the contents of the said hand bill and because of communication, there is no defamation. 5 In the midst of dictation, learned counsel requested to consider the ground raised by him in this application. It is settled principle of law that grounds to be considered in terms of prayer and relief claimed by the applicant. When learned counsel in his first submission was specifically questioned whether observations of the court of Sessions on the point of sanction were challenged anywhere to which it is informed that challenge is to the complaint and not to the order passed in the revisional jurisdiction by the learned Sessions court. Considering this aspect, it need not be considered here. 6 As stated earlier, as the contents of application prima facie discloses commission of offence punishable under Section 500 of I.P.C., this court do not find any fault with the cognizance of offence cran3732.10 -6- taken by learned Magistrate. No interference is called for at the hands of this Court. Application being sans any merit and stands dismissed accordingly. ( A.V. POTDAR. J.) rlj/