1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 60/2011 Shailesh Dinkarrao @ Diwakarrao Ambulkar V/s. State of Maharashtra through P.S.O., P.S. Sewagram, Dist. Wardha ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. R. M. Daga, advocate for applicant. Mr. D. B. Yengal, APP for respondent. Coram: A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 15th June 2011 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant (original accused) prayed to quash F.I.R. and charge-sheet pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, 6th Court, Wardha on the ground that no prima facie case was made out against the applicant in respect of accusations punishable under Sections 385, 294, 506 and 509 of Indian Penal Code. According to learned advocate for the applicant the FIR shows the period of occurrence of offence from 01/01/10 to 01/01/10 and prior to that, therefore there was no question to apply Section 385 of Indian Penal Code by the Investigating Agency. It is contended that the complainant made malafide, frivolous and 2 vexatious allegations. The allegations made are that the applicant had asked complainant to marry with him or else he would defame her. If the proposal is not accepted by the complainant then she will have to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- to him. These allegations have been made by complainant in order to implicate the applicant falsely in severe accusations. It is further grievance of the applicant that the allegations are one sided and without any documentary evidence on record. Therefore, inherent powers be used under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the charge- sheet and F.I.R. pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wardha. 3. Learned APP submitted that charge-sheet is already filed and the applicant would have alternate efficacious remedy to move an application for discharge before the learned Trial Court if, according to him the allegations are baseless and false. It is contended on behalf of the state that the complainant is a student of Medical College, Sawangi Meghe studying in Physiotherapy and she had narrated the incident of her harassment to her brother and others and ample material has been collected against the present applicant. Learned APP submitted with reference to statements of witnesses recorded before the Investigating Agency that the applicant was sending messages in filthy language, obscene and defamatory as well and making phone calls at odd times. The applicant had also threatened complainant to give sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- otherwise she would be defamed by him. The applicant was also continuously insisting upon complainant to marry her. According to learned APP there are witnesses to support the complainant in respect of accusations. 4. Learned advocate for the applicant placed reliance to the ruling 3 in case of Rakesh Ranjan Gupta, Appellant V/s. State of U.P. And another, Respondent reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 2115 in order to submit that the charge-sheet is liable to be quashed if there is no case against the accused in a Criminal Court since in such a case accused is likely to be subjected to unnecessary harassment for facing the criminal prosecution. Therefore, when allegations do not disclose the prima facie case as in the facts and circumstances stated in the ruling of Rakesh Ranjan Gupta the allegations made were baseless or unsupported. The criminal case proceedings may not continue, however, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, assuming for the sake of argument that the proforma of the FIR mentions the period of occurrence of offence is 1/1/10 to 1/1/10 only. The averments in the complaint (oral report) by the complainant Arundhati indicated that since one year prior to 07/01/2010 she was receiving indecent messages on her mobile number i.e. 9324589138 but since it was unknown call number she did not paid any heed but repeated messages were being received by her. She had informed about the harassment to her brother Vyankatesh who had threatened the caller and asked him not to make any phone call to his sister and then complainant came to know the name of caller as Shailesh Ambulkar resident of Pavnar. After giving him understanding by the brother of complainant, applicant had stopped sending messages for few days but he again restarted the same activities of sending indecent messages and harassing her. The said messages being in filthy and obscene languages, led fear in the mind of the complainant and therefore complainant informed her father about the said incident. Complainant’s father also tried to persuade applicant to desist but after some time he continued with the same activities. After some 4 days, the girl friends (room partner) of complainant also started receiving the same kind of messages from applicant in filthy and obscene language and by virtue of which they had to change their mobile numbers. Applicant had also threatened to the complainant that he will obtain her number and defame her, he will beat up her brother, and he would abuse her father and also beat him up. Applicant had also threatened to the complainant that he would defame her by writing a letter to her college, and also insisted upon her to marry with him and demanded sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- from complainant and threatened that he would defame her and acid will be thrown on her face. Thus, since on year prior to 1/1/2010, the applicant has continued to harass complainant. The background facts of the incident dated 1/1/2010 appears to have been mentioned in the oral report itself which has been investigated by the police by recording statement of various witnesses and charge-sheet has been filed. Without expressing of opinion on merits of the accusations or material collected during the investigation, the allegations or accusations at this stage can not be considered as so baseless or without substance so as to pass the order as prayed for to quash the F.I.R. and charge-sheet. The applicant is at liberty to pray for discharge, if charge is not yet framed, in this case. With these observations, the application stands dismissed. JUDGE Punde