( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 8 OF 2010 1. Deodatta s/o Digambar Mai @ Mayee R/o c/o Office of Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad. 2. Suryakant s/o Shamrao Bhalerao, R/o as above. APPLICANTS versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad. RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 10 OF 2010 1. Munja s/o Madhavrao Muley, R/o c/o Office of Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad. 2. Venkat s/o Rambhau Andhale, R/o as above. APPLICANTS 3. Rajesh s/o Pralhadrao Gholve, R/o as above. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad. RESPONDENTS .... Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav and Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, advocates for the applicants in both the applications. Mr. B.J. Sonawane, APP for the respondents in both the applications. Mr. V.D. Sapkal, advocate holding for Mr. H.S. Bali, advocate for the complainant in both the applications. .... ( 2 ) [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 31st August, 2010] PER COURT : 1. By these applications, the applicants are seeking directions under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The applicants apprehend their arrests in connection with crime No. 24/2009, registered at Kranti Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad, for offences punishable under section 499, 500, 109, 120-B of I.P. Code and u/sec. 3 (1) (8) and 3 (1) (9) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, "the Atrocities Act"). 3. The applicants were the members of the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee at the material time. The complainant was working as police constable attached to the said Committee. The applicants jointly sent a confidential report dated 8th June, 2009 (Exh-B to the petition) addressed to the then Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad seeking police protection at the place of working of the S.T. and N.T. Caste Certificate Verification and Scrutiny Committee. They alleged ( 3 ) that conduct of the complainant was detrimental to the smooth working of the Committee. They also made several allegations about his indulgence in murky business of blackmailing the members of the Scrutiny Committee, etc. It appears that the complainant was thereafter transferred. The complainant then lodged a report with the P.S.O. of Kranti Chowk Police Station alleging that the applicants have committed offence of causing harm to his reputation and thereby he has been defamed. He has also alleged that the applicants are guilty of offences under section 3 (1) (8) and 3 (1) (9) of the Atrocities Act. 4. Ad-interim protection was granted to the applicants in the meanwhile, by order of this Court on 6th January, 2010. 5. Upon consideration of the material and on hearing learned counsel and the learned A.P.P., two (2) things are manifestly clear. First, the complainant was annoyed due to his transfer and thereafter, lodged the F.I.R. Secondly, it is amply clear that the applicants gave investigation report to the Commissioner of Police vide communication dated 8th June, 2009. The confidential communication to higher authority may come within the Exception under section 499 of the I.P. Code and, therefore, it may not prima facie ( 4 ) tantamount to commission of the alleged offence of defamation. Mr. V.D. Sapkal, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, vehemently argued that the complainant is a sufferer due to such kind of communication and was unnecessarily harassed due to the acts of the applicants. He would submit that though the communication is said to be confidential, yet, it is being used for taking administrative action against the complainant and, therefore, it has become open to one and all. It is unfortunate that such confidential communication is made available and is not kept secret. The internal departmental action on strength of such confidential communication is altogether a different aspect. At the present, it is only required to be seen whether prima facie, the alleged offence is made out or it is rather not possible to infer commission of such offence. As stated before, the applicants together sent the confidential communication to the higher authority of the complainant with the main intention to obtain police protection at the working place of the Scrutiny Committee and for appropriate actions. The communication was not only intended to cause annoyance to the complainant because no copy thereof was given to him. Unless there is publication or information given to the complainant about such communication, it is difficult to infer that the acts of the ( 5 ) applicants would come within the ambit of sections 3 (1) (8) and 3 (1) (9) of the Atrocities Act. 6. In view of the foregoing reasons and circumstances, both the applications are allowed in terms of the interim order. The interim protection so granted by this Court will come to an end on filing of the chargesheet. 7. The observations made in this order are only of incidental nature and limited to the disposal of the present applications and may not be considered in any other proceedings. 8. The order dated 17th August, 2010, pertaining to imposition of costs on the complainant is recalled. 9. Both the applications are accordingly disposed of. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln8-10-10 ( 6 )