SANTOSH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard learned counsel for both the sides for final disposal.

(2.) Present application is filed for relief of quashing First Information Report (FIR) bearing Crime No. 3034 of 2015 registered with M.I.D.C. Police Station, Waluj, Aurangabad, for the offence punishable under Sections 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1985 and also Sessions Case No. 141 of 2017 which is filed in this crime and pending in Sessions Court, Aurangabad. The crime was registered on the basis of report given by respondent No.2 - Sanjay S/o. Shripat Bhingare on 01-04-2015. In the FIR, he has described the incident dated 12-03-2015. The informant was working in FDCLB-2, MIDC Waluj, as worker at relevant time and present applicant was working as Senior HR Manager. It is contended that on 12-03-2015, informant had entered the cabin of the applicant with his two colleagues like Shivnath Ingale and Sanjay Bhole for giving one representation. It is the contention that they wanted to help the family of deceased employee Mr. Barwal by deducting some portion of salary of the employees and giving that portion to family of deceased Barwal. It is contended that present applicant refused to accept the representation even after reading it and he asked them to go to other Officer by name Mr. Tongale. It is contended that they went to Mr. Tongale and handed over representation to him.

(3.) It is the contention of informant that from the cabin of Mr. Tongale, when they were returning and when they were passing by the side of cabin of present applicant, applicant gave them call, so they stopped there. It is contended that applicant arrogantly said to the informant that informant ought to have resigned from the Office bearer post of his Union. It is contended that when the informant said that he will not give such resignation, applicant gave abuses to him by taking name of his caste and also gave threats. It is contended that applicant then said to Mr. Sanjay Bhole and Mr. Shivnath Ingale they should not remain in the company of respondent-informant, otherwise, they would lose their job.