1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3321 OF 2008 Rajaram Sheenappa Rai, Age 50 years, Occu. Business, r/o Plot No. L-215/2, Nimblak Road, M.I.D.C., Ahmednagar. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra. 2. Police Inspector, M.I.D.C. Police Station, Ahmednagar. 3. Superintendent of Police, S.P. Office, Ahmednagar. 4. Ankush Mahadev Vighane, Age 17 years, Occu. service, r/o Nimblak, Tal.Nagar, dist. Ahmednagar. ...OPPNENTS ... Mr.B.N.Palve, Adv.,for the applicant/accused. Mr. N.V.Gaware, Adv., for respondent no.4. Mrs. B.R.Khekale, APP, for respondent nos. 1 to 3. ... CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 5/9/2009 *** 2 PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr. B.N.Palve, Counsel for the accused/applicant, learned A.P.P. Mrs. B.R.Khekale, for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. N.V.Gaware, Counsel for respondent no. 4/complainant. 2. By consent the matter is finally heard at admission stage. Rule, made returnable forthwith. 3. In an incident dt.16.6.2008, when the complainant, aged around 17/18 years, was working, there was some fun played by few other employees who were four in number. The employees, including Supervisor, called the complainant. They wanted carnal intercourse with the complainant. The complainant resisted, he was yelling. However, one of the employee, Kiran, allegedly, controlled him while the other two employees split the apparels on the person of the complainant. His brother Lahu tried to intervene, however, he met with a slap. The Supervisor, allegedly, took the compressor and by showing all inhumanness, inserted the pipe of compressor to the anus of the complainant, while the other employee operated the compressor, thereby releasing air/pressure which had its adverse impact. They knew that the compressor is likely to cause death of the complainant. 3 However, the said accused persons did not bother. The complainant was required to be operated. He was unconscious for a considerable period. 4. The complainant, after getting consciousness, reported the matter to the Police. It has sent cold waves in the vicinity as to nature of the offense and it was also found that the complainant was within the bracket of child labour, prohibited under the law. The fact remains, in the FIR, the complainant has not attributed any role to the accused/applicant herein, the employer. The brother Lahu, in a statement, indicated that, at the material time, the accused/employer was in his cabin or he was called after the incident. Reading the FIR from any angle, there is no element of instigation or any abetment on the part of the employer for his employees to commit the offense in the manner they have accelerated. 5. The ingredients of Section 307, 506, 201, 2002 of IPC are coined by the Police vide the above referred crime. There will hardly be infraction of Section 307 of IPC. Criminal intimidation is dealt with in Section 503 of IPC which is as under: "503: Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation 4 of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation." Reading the statement of the complainant and also of Lahu, to my mind, the ingredients requiring compliance is absolutely missing. Then comes screening the evidence, as indicated in Section 201 of IPC. The accused herein, in the capacity as employer, allegedly, asked the complainant not to report the matter to Police as the accused (the employer) was to meet the medical expenses. The event of slapping Lahu, brother of the complainant, while boarding the vehicle, when the complainant was taken, will not amount to attract Section 323 of IPC as the condition of complainant was deteriorating fast, the employer could not spare time to wait and accommodate Lahu in the vehicle. This will not amount to infraction of either Section 506 or Section 201 or Section 202 of IPC. 6. During the course of submissions, Mr. N.V.Gaware, Counsel, took recourse to the judgment in State of A.P. V. Baijoori Kanthaiah and another ( 2008 AIR SCW 7860). The Hon'ble Lordships have observed in the said case that the FIR was filed by Excise Officer and there were 5 some statements about the seizure of black jaggery. I have indicated hereinbefore that, apart from the statement of the complainant, his further statement or statement of his brother does not make out a case for infraction of the Penal provisions. The facts in the said judgment will not be applicable to the present case, as facts of this case are altogether different. 7. Taking survey of the facts, no offense is made out against the accused/applicant herein. 8. During the course of submissions, it is pointed out that the chargesheet is filed on 28.9.2008. Present application is dt.22.9.2008, naturally before the chargesheet. Non mentioning or non carrying amendment in the prayer clause or not annexing copies of final report by itself will not defuse the merits of the present petition. The powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are of high amplitude, they are to be played in the event the Court comes to the conclusion that there is abuse of the process and the Court has to intervene. The prosecution against the accused herein will be more leaning to humiliation and without any reason to attend the court proceedings and face persecution. Hence, interference, as warranted in terms of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is exercised. 6 The proceedings, to the extent of accused/applicant, vide Crime No.I.125/2008, registered with M.I.D.C., Police Station, Ahmednagar, is quashed and, consequently, the accused is discharged. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/3321-08crapl