1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.863/2009. Bhagwan s/o Hanmantrao Jogdand - APPLICANT VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra & Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.S.S.Choudhari, Advocate for Applicant; Mrs.B.R.Khekale, APP for Resp.Nos.1 & 2. Mr.Rajendra Deshmukh, Advocate for Resp.No.3. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 21st August, 2009. PER COURT : . Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 2) The accused, a Headmaster in the School, seeks to quash F.I.R. 1/2009 registered at Police Station, Mahur dated 28th February, 2009, owing to the report lodged by complainant – Santosh s/o Ukkandrao Kamble, against the accused/petitioner. The Counsel informs that it was Saheblal Hardayal Dube and Satish Mahavir Mishra, who are instrumental in implicating the applicant/accused, as these two persons have 2 defalcated huge amount and they have been prosecuted by the applicant/accused herein, vide report to the JMFC in which order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are passed. The learned Counsel contemplate that no such incident of 24th January, 2009, as has been canvassed by the complainant – Santosh, has indeed taken place. It was only on activation of above referred two persons, false report is filed. According to the Counsel, statements of several school teachers support that no such incident, at least of using filthy language against the complainant or his daughter by name of the caste, has taken place. 3) At this prima facie stage of the matter, if one reads the application dated 28th January, 2009 moved by the present accused/applicant to the Superintendent of Police, Nanded, one finds that he does not dispute of the incident dated 24.1.2009 and also does not dispute about the stopping participation in the cultural programme to a pupil belonging to backward/SC community. The contention is that it was at the behest of said Dr.Dube that the prosecution is launched. 4) Reading the F.I.R. at this stage, without adding and subtracting anything from it, the fact remains there is prima facie material against the accused. The ingredients, as contemplated under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. warrant that the intervention in such prosecution should 3 be minimal and in exceptional cases. By virtue of Judgment, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 – State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and Ors. Seven categories have been postulated by the Hon’ble Lordships, which are as under : (a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R.do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose 265 the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a 4 police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 5) Taking recourse to these seven Categories, I find the present case will not be fitting in any one of them. That apart, the conduct of the applicant/accused speaks volume. 5 It is remotely that the father of the pupil will act as a stooge for somebody for ventilating some other grievances at the costs of educational facilities of his daughter. 6) In the result, there is no merit in the matter, Criminal Application is dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief vacated. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/cran863.09