HARSHAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed by Party- in-person,invoking Constitutional powers of this court under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, to challenge order dated 20.1.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, below Exhibit-14 in Sessions Case No.37/2015, rejecting his application, seeking discharge under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure from Sessions Case No.37/2015 pending before the said Court of the offences punishable under Sections 354 , 323 , 504 , 506 , 384 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Heard Party-in-person - petitioner; learned APP Shri AM Phule for Respondent No.1-State and learned Advocate Shri AD Aghav for Respondent No.2.

(3.) It has been submitted by the petitioner in person that he has matrimonial dispute against his wife and present Respondent No.2, who is a practicing Advocate, is representing her in the Trial Court. The wife of the petitioner had filed Domestic Violence case, bearing DV Case No. 105/2009 against him. That case was decided in favour of the petitioner after 10.6.2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Respondent No.2 filed an FIR bearing CR No.180/2010 on 10.6.2010 against him, stating that she was present in the Court premises in connection with the case filed by wife of the petitioner. The petitioner was also present. His wife and her father were also present. After the next date was given by the Court when she was near the gate of the Court, the petitioner started abusing her in filthy language. When she told that he should not abuse her, at that time, he rushed towards her, dragged her and abused in filthy language thereby outraging her modesty. After she raised hue and cry, her husband, who is also a practicing advocate, came along with others and she was rescued. It is alleged that Respondent No.2 was threatened by the petitioner that if she wants to stop her defamation, then she should give him an amount of Rs.2,00,000, otherwise she should be ready for the consequences. The petitioner-in- person further submits that the said story built by Respondent No.2 against him is totally false. In fact, another matter which was between him and his wife was decided in his favour on 6.6.2010 and, therefore, Respondent No.2 was annoyed with him. In fact, on that day, i.e. on 10.6.2010, said DV case was not on Board. Evidence to that effect has been produced by him. He was assaulted by the informant, i.e. Respondent No.2, her husband and her client's husband. When he was near his vehicle and was about to go home, he was caught hold of by Respondent No.2 and petitioner's wife. He was assaulted by kicks and blows and was abused in the name of caste as he is a member of Scheduled Caste. After he got himself rescued and was running to save his life, he was intercepted by police. He has taken treatment with the hospital. He has lodged a report about the same on the same day, but it has been managed by Respondent No.2 to be registered after her FIR was registered and, therefore, his FIR has been registered with CR No. 181/2020 with the same police station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 504 of PIC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act . The said case has been investigated and charge sheet has been filed before the Special Court. Both the cases are before the same court now. However, the case that has been tried to be made out by Respondent No.2, is totally false. There was no material against him and, therefore, he prayed for discharge. However, the learned Judge has not agreed to the same and gave a wrong order. The party-in-person, therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned order and discharge him. He also submitted that his wife and present Respondent No.2 are harassing him and they are bent upon to see that he is terminated from the service. He is a Government servant and now because of the harassment and filing of false cases, he was suspended.