RAVINDRA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for fnal disposal. The learned APP represented respondent No. 4 informant, who was police ofcer.

(2.) In F.I.R. given on 2.1.2020 to Tuljapur Police Station, District Osmanabad, it is the contention of respondent No. 4 that he was working in Tuljapur Police Station as Police Inspector from 2.11.2019. It is his contention that he and Sub Divisional Police Ofcer Shri. Dilip Tiprase had taken steps to curb illegal activities which were going on in the past within local jurisdiction of Tuljapur Police Station. It is contended that he was not succumbing to pressure of anybody and due to that present applicant has made false allegations against him and Tiprase by sending representation to his superior ofcer and by publishing news in local newspaper.

(3.) It is the contention of respondent No. 4 that he came across the news item published in 'Khadtar Pravas' newspaper that a crime of rape was registered against him on the basis of report given by a lady police ofcer. It is contended that even when 'B' summary report was fled in the said crime such news was published. It is contended that when he was taking steps to curb illegal activities, in the news, it was published that he had joined hands with the persons involved in illegal activities and he was getting share in the money made by those persons. It is contended that in news item it was published that he had joined hands with thieves also and he was getting 50% share in the property stolen by the thieves. It is contended that in the news item it was published that for settlement of the dispute between the parties, he was extracting money from both the sides.