BHAGWAN RAMNATH DHATRAK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) By this appeal, the appellants seek their release on bail in connection with C. R. No. 76 of 2020 registered with the Ozar Police Station, Nashik, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147 , 341 , 323 , 504 , 506 of the Indian Penal Code (' IPC ') and Sections 3(1) (r)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ('SCST Act').

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that the allegations as against the appellants are false and baseless. He submits that the dispute if any, is of a civil nature, which has been given a colour of a criminal case. He submits that the respondent No.2-complainant had filed a complaint on 14th January 2020 as against the appellants alleging that an amount of Rs. 42,00,000/- was due from the appellants for the year 2016- 2017 and 2017-2018 in connection with a sale of tomatoes. He submits that thereafter, respondent No. 2 filed a complaint with the Ozar Police Station on 11th February, 2020 with respect to an alleged incident of 10 th February 2020. He submits that in the said complaint dated 11 th February 2020, the respondent No. 2 has made similar allegations of threatening, abuse and assault by the appellants. He submits that the police coerced and compelled the appellants to amicably settle the said complaint dated 11 th February 2020 by entering into a Memorandum of Understanding ('MOU'), by which, the appellants were to pay the respondent No.2-complainant, a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- towards sale of tomatoes. He submits that the appellants had issued post-dated cheques to the respondent No.2-complainant pursuant to the MOU, as a security and had made payments to the respondent No.2 through RTGS of about Rs. 28,00,000/-, from the date of the first complaint i.e. 14th January 2020. He submits that despite having received payment of Rs. 28,00,000/- odd, the respondent No. 2 again filed the aforesaid complaint/FIR dated 9th August 2020. He submits that the allegations made in the second complaint dated 9th August 2020 are similar to the earlier complaint lodged by the respondent No. 2 dated 11th February 2020.