1 Cri.Appln.No.3747/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3747/2009 Vishwasrao s/o Raosaheb Nimbalkar - APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and Anr. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.Sandeep S Deshmukh, Advocate for Applicant; Mr.PP More, APP for State. Mr.PD Bachate, Adv. For Respondent No.2. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION ST.2629/2011 in CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3747/2009 The State of Maharashtra. - APPLICANTs VERSUS 1) Dr.Uttamrao Dhanaji Mahajan and Anr. - RESPONDENTS Mr.PP More, APP for State; Mr.Sandeep S Deshmukh, Adv. For Resp.No.1. Mr.PD Bachate, Adv. For Resp.No.2. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 23rd June, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Learned APP has, pursuant to the direction dated June 17, 2011, has tendered affidavit in reply, copy received by Mr. 2 Cri.Appln.No.3747/2009 Deshmukh. 2) Heard finally. The applicant herein, police officer, working at Chalisgaon police station, allegedly, in pursuance to the directions of his superior – Additional Superintendent of Police, called the Respondent no.2 – Dr. Uttamrao at police station on 30th June, 2009. Respondent no.2 was allegedly threatened for ransom. Event of threats by the Additional Superintendent of Police, has taken place before the applicant in the capacity as Police Sub Inspector. Based on the complaint, lodged by son of Respondent no.2, a detailed investigation was carried; statements of 30 witnesses, including of the applicant, PSI – Nimbalkar, were recorded and offence was registered against the Additional Superintendent of Police. 3) By virtue of the questioned letter dated 9th October,2009, a distorted request was made to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Chalisgaon by the Investigator Shri Mitkari, State CID, informing that during investigation, the investigator found involvement of the applicant herein, the police sub-Inspector, as the applicant herein tendered, rather prohibited, the complainant and restrained him and wrongfully 3 Cri.Appln.No.3747/2009 confined him and hence, according to the said complainant, offence in terms of Section 342 of Indian Penal Code, is primarily indicated and it is so added. 4) In the affidavit of Respondent no.2 – Dr.Uttamrao, all the events, that have transpired from his illegal detention of the matter being taken to the various courts including Hon'ble Apex Court, the demands made by the Addl. SP, settling the same, reducing the figures getting advance cheque, everything is incorporated. 5) Mr.Bachate, learned Counsel representing Respondent no.2, submits that if the applicant herein is roped as accused with the Additional SP, the very purpose of prosecution shall be frustrated as it was the principal contention of Respondent no.2 that the Additional SP, without any authority, illegally demanded ransom and the said respondent – Dr. Uttamrao was illegally confined at the instance and on the direction of said Additional SP. Mr.Bachate says, negotiations, which had ensued between Respondent no.2 Dr. Uttamrao and the Addl.SP, are witnessed by the applicant, which he has elaborately stated during investigation. If the applicant herein is arrayed as accused for an offence under Section 342, the learned Counsel 4 Cri.Appln.No.3747/2009 accepts, the prosecution as against the Additional Superintendent of Police, would be frustrated. 6) Mr.Deshmukh has a grievance, the application though appears to be innocuous, but it is not so, it is moved with the calculated motive and motto. It is made, as the Additional SP, who has wielding influence in the department, desired that entire affairs of the prosecution should be diluted and the FIR should be squeezed to molecule. 7) Considering these aspects, the approach adopted by the Investigator calls for interference. The letter issued, subject of challenge, naturally calls for interference. Impleadment of the applicant as accused should be under a proper procedure, which the Investigator should follow. For the present, the letter is set aside. 8) Heard learned APP in Criminal Application St.No.2629/2011. Notice, returnable forthwith. Mr.Deshmukh and Mr.Bachate waive service for respective respondents. 9) By present application, State has urged that situation warrants to re-call the order of 5 Cri.Appln.No.3747/2009 slapping the costs of Rs.10,000/-. Learned APP submits, there was communication gap between him and the Investigator. The investigator is on the verge of retirement getting retired on 30th June, 2011. 10) Mr.Deshmukh and Mr.Bachate, have left the issue to the decision of the Court. 11) Considering the difficulties explained, with no objection from the counsel for the respondents, the order, imposing costs of Rs. 10,000/-, is re-called. However, from the said amount, an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) shall be deposited/paid to the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad. The balance amount of Rs.9,000/- (Rupees nine thousand) be paid over the State. Criminal application is partly allowed. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/