1 CRWP 957/2010 & CRAPL 4764/2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRI. WP/957/2010 SUNITA VIJAY SAWAMACHAL V/S THE STTE OF MAHARASHTRA WITH CRI.APPLN/4764/2010 BABITA ANAND SAWACHMAL AND OTHERS V/S THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. Arvind S.Deshmukh, Mr. R.R.Mantri, Advocates, for respective applicants. Mr. V.H.Dighe, APP for State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:8-3-2011 1. The applicants/employees in Government Medical College Hospital at Nanded, seek quashment of Crime No.I/201/2010. Learned Counsel for the accused/applicants submit that, considering the FIR of the Tehsildar concerned, no case for infraction of Penal provisions is made out. At the most, it would amount to dereliction in the official discharge of functions as Class IV employees for which criminal prosecution by itself would not be a solution. Counsel also submits that 2 CRWP 957/2010 & CRAPL 4764/2010 even a false information in respect of applicant Babita was furnished ( page No. 21) which was corrected subsequently. This shows mala fide intention on the part of the authorities. Learned Counsel Mr. Mantri submits that investigation by Police Inspector Shri Bedre is not permissible under law as, under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, investigation should necessarily be by Deputy Superintendent of Police. 2. Learned A.P.P. submits that the statement of relatives of patients and employees recorded by the investigator, including inquiries made by Revenue authorities reveal that the allegations have substance. The Class IV employees extracted money. In the statement of Yelubai, she has informed that the infant of her daughter was not allowed to be taken back as ransom was not paid. Learned A.P.P. informs that applicants have been identified during investigation and appropriate remedy of discharge is available to the applicants before the learned Judge seized with the matter. 3. Considering the nature of accusations and the allegations against the 3 CRWP 957/2010 & CRAPL 4764/2010 accused/applicants, Class IV employees, even if it adds to dereliction of official duties, however, statements of few of the witnesses leads to extortion by putting in mind fear of injury to the individuals. The patient's life was allegedly put to endanger by misdeeds of the accused/applicants. The accused/applicants being class IV employees were supposed to be under due adherence to the directions of the superiors, however, they disobeyed the directions. Statements of the witnesses implicate the accused/applicants. It cannot be said that the prosecution initiated against both the applicants or others is perverse or abuse of the powers. The settled position of law, as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal ( 1992 SCC Cri.426) highlights following seven categories: "(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the ac- cused; (b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the 4 CRWP 957/2010 & CRAPL 4764/2010 F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investi- gation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institu- tion and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; 5 CRWP 957/2010 & CRAPL 4764/2010 (g) 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. " Taking into consideration these categories and also considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttaranchal Pradesh ( (2008) SCC (Cri.) 259), the present case does not call for quashing. There is no abuse of process or the allegations in the FIR taken together, are not so absurd or improbable which will not be making out any case against the accused/applicants. Both the applications dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/957-10crwp