1 Cri. W.P.No. 288.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 288 OF 2010 Sambhajirao S/o Bhimrao Patil ... Petitioner V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents and others ... Mr.Vijay Sharma, Advocate for Petitioner Mr.V.D.Rakh, A.P.P. for respondent No.1-State ... CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 24TH MARCH, 2010 PER COURT 1] Heard. 2] The petitioner seeks quashing of criminal Case initiated by the respondent no.2-complainant, who alleged that the petitioner, his immediate Superior Officer in the office, had been abusing and harassing him on account of his status as member of Scheduled Caste. In the complaint, the respondent No.2 described number incidents with graphic details as to how the petitioner had abused the respondent No.2, on the basis of his caste in presence of number of witnesses. On plain reading of the complaint, a very strong case is depicted against the petitioner. 3] The petitioner tried to suggest that the respondent No.2- complainant had developed grudge against him, because as his superior Officer had to issue warnings to respondent No.2. He further 2 Cri. W.P.No. 288.10 explained and even demonstrate through the documents annexed to the petition that the respondent No.2 was not upto the mark in his work as Sales Officer. The company, for which the parties work, is in Insurance business. It is evident that, the company expects higher targets of sales from their Officers. It also appears from the record annexed to the petition that the respondent No.2 on many occasion could not deliver the expected results and could not meet sales targets. Due to this on number of occasions the superior Officers of respondent No.2 issued warning to him pointing out to him that he had shown poor performance. 4] The petitioner by producing the material on record is trying to suggest that the respondent No.2 is likely to lose his job, due to the adverse remarks. The petitioner also annexed the copy of his own statement recorded by the police in connection with this case. In this statement the petitioner stated that the respondent No.2 and his two colleagues in the fear of losing their jobs, as last resort concocted a false story, which reflects in the complaint. The petitioner even suggested that the respondent No.2 is trying to take advantage of his status as member of a Scheduled Caste. 5] The respondent No.2 in his complaint stated that the petitioner has been harassing, insulting, and abusing him on the basis of his caste for last one year. Before making the complaint to the police, he had approached to his Superior Officers. He stated that, he had waited for his superior Officer’s response to his complaint against the petitioner, but in vein. He said, due to lack of their response he ultimately lodged the criminal complaint. If the petitioner could lay his hands on the internal correspondence of the officers of the Company including the various e-mails sent by respondent No.2 to his Superior Officers, he could have certainly laid his hands on the complaints 3 Cri. W.P.No. 288.10 which the respondent No.2 had made to his superior in respect of the petitioner’s abuse and insults, but this correspondence is conspicuous by its absence in the material filed in support of the petition. In any case the plea of the petitioner is clearly in the nature of defence that he ultimately or likely to take in this case. 6] Mr.Sharma, Advocate appearing for the petitioner lastly asserted that on plain reading of the complaint in juxtaposition with the correspondence that occurred between the respondent No.2 and his Superior Officers including petitioner himself, the case would fall within parameter of the clause (7) of Para No. 108 enumerated in the Judgment of State of Hariyana Vs. Bhajanlal and other’s reported in (1992 Cr.L.J. 527) (Supreme Court). Clause 7 reads as under. Clause (7): Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide 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. 7] However, I do not agree with Mr. Shamra, because the facts stated in the complaint and facts reflected through correspondence, do not show at this stage that the case would fall even by remote chance within the parameter of clause 7. I am, therefore, not inclined to exercise the discretion to admit this writ petition. The Criminal Writ Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) MTK/ok