( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2116 OF 2010 Kamalbai Laxman Ghatge APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT .... Mr. M.D. Shinde, advocate for the applicant. Mr. V.D. Godbharle, APP for the respondent/State. .... WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2248 OF 2010 Raghunath Shankar Gaikwad APPLICANT VERSUS Kamalbai Laxman Ghatge & another RESPONDENT .... Mr. R.V. Gore, advocate for the applicant. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 4th October, 2010] PER COURT : 1. The applicant - Kamalbai claims herself to be a social worker. She seeks directions under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. She apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No. I-71/2010, registered at Kannad Police Station, for offences, punishable under section 384, 506 and 504 of the ( 2 ) I.P. Code. 2. It appears that one Raghunath Gaikwad lodged FIR alleging that he runs a fair price shop and the applicant used to threaten him that she would complain against him because he was running another fair price shop in name of his wife by name Kantabai. He alleged that the applicant used to visit his shop since about three (3) months, intermittently, and used to demand 10 kgs. sugar and kerosene. He informed her that he had no relation with Kantabai because she had obtained divorce from him and she was residing separately in village Wadgaon. However, the applicant threatened him that if he will not give her sugar and kerosene, then she would make complaint against him for running two (2) fair price shops. She filed an application dated 16-03-2010 against him. Thereafter, the applicant used to visit his shop and used to demand Rs. 50,000/- for withdrawal of that application and used to threaten him that she would get licence of his shop cancelled. He alleged that on 16th May, 2010, at about 6.30 p.m., the applicant visited his shop and demanded Rs. 50,000/- in presence of some of the customers by name, Abdul Rahim Shaikh Munaf, Subhash Shirse, Mansub Shamrao, etc. ( 3 ) 3. It appears that there is prima facie material to infer the fact that the applicant claims herself to be a taluka leader of Samajwadi Party. The complaint application shows that names of independent witnesses have been mentioned by the complainant, in whose presence, such demand of Rs. 50,000/- was made to the complainant. The extortion of the money was under guise of revoking of the fair price shop's licence. The allegations made in the complaint indicate prima facie that there is a serious charge levelled against the applicant and that arrest of the applicant may not be without any reason. It cannot be inferred that she is likely to be humiliate due to the arrest. Considering these aspects, the application is rejected. Ad-interim relief, if any, is vacated. 4. In view of rejection of the application, the criminal application No. 2248/2010 stands rejected. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln2116-10 ( 4 )