1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No.264 of 2008 (Harihar s/o Padmakar Patil vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. K.C.Sant, Adv., for the applicant. Mr.K.M.Suryawanshi, APP for respondent State/nos. 1 & 2. Mr. V.B.Patil, Adv., for respondent no.3. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:31/8/2009 ... P.C.: 1. Heard learned Counsel extensively. 2. Special Case No.52/2008, pending at Sessions Court, Jalgaon, arising out of Crime No.12/2008, for an offense punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is sought to be quashed by the accused. 3. Applicant Harihar is blind 2 and compounder at Municipal Council, Dharangaon whereas the complainant ( respondent no.3) is a Councilor. According to the learned Counsel for the applicant Harihar, it was based on the information sought and brought by the applicant Harihar, it revealed that the Councilor (respondent No. 3) has three living children and, consequently, respondent no.3 could not continue to be a Councilor as he will be manifestly suffering disqualification. There was some controversy between the applicant Harihar with the said Councilor while the applicant was in hospital discharging his duties for which he has reported the matter to the Police. 4. Complainant ( respondent no.3) on 19.7.2008, lodged a complaint which, allegedly, is a counter to the report lodged by Harihar for the earlier incident. In the report lodged by Councilor respondent no.3 Karan dt.19.7.2008, he has in unnumbered paragraph no.3 3 stated as to what has transpired on 19.7.2008, when said Karan was with his friend Rajendra Pundlik Thakare, as pillion rider and as to how the accused Harihar has abused him in the name of his caste. Complainant has given reference about assembling of Kruparam Mali,Vijay Girdhar Mali and Vinay Bhave. It was at the instance of Raju Thakare the matter was pacified to some extent and the complainant left with him. 5. I quite see that it may be the root cause that the Harihar having got details of the complainant, inviting contemplated action of disqualification or having taken earlier incident dt. 19.7.2008 to heart, however, at this stage of the matter it cannot be said that the recitals in the FIR and, particularly, when there are named persons in the FIR, taken as a whole, depict a manipulation or affair of oppression. 6. The Counsel for Harihar, during the course of his 4 submissions, canvassed that, in the light of judgment in the matter of State of Punjab Vs. Bhajanlal (AIR 1992 SC 604), particularly clause (7) therein, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. will squarely apply. Clause No.7 in the matter of State of Punjab Vs. Bhajanlal is as under: "(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide 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. In the light of the recitals in the FIR, though there was so called earlier incident, as referred by Harihar or the complainant getting outraged by collection of record against the Councilor but the FIR, as a whole taken together, at this stage, cannot be branded to be manifestly attended with mala fides. It is for the original complainant to 5 establish the averments made by him. Taking survey of the FIR, I do not find that it is sheer abuse of process of law. 8. Application for discharge moved by the accused/applicant Harihar before the learned Special Judge is rejected by order dt.3rd Dec.,2008, and I am informed that the matter is at the stage of charge. In the situation no case for interference, invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Revision Application rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/264-08crra