RAJABHAU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant seeks quashing and setting aside of the Charge Sheet No. 74 of 2020 in Crime No. 02 of 2020, registered with Tuljapur Police Station, Tuljapur, District Osmanabad for the offences punishable under Sec. 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 and Sec. 500 of the Indian Penal Code and prosecution, if any, arising out of the said FIR.

(2.) It is the prosecution case that, Respondent No. 4 filed an F.I.R. vide C.R. No. 02 of 2020 at Tuljapur Police Station, District Osmanabad, against the applicant, on 2/1/2020 for the offence punishable under Sec. 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') and Sec. 500 of the Indian Penal Code. It is contended in the FIR that Respondent No. 4 was working in Tuljapur Police Station as Police Inspector from 2/11/2019. It is further contended that Respondent No. 4 and SubDivisional Police Officer Shri. Dilip Tiparse had taken steps to curb the illegal activities which were going on in the past within local jurisdiction of Tuljapur Police Station. It is further contended that Respondent No. 4 was not succumbing to pressure of anybody and, therefore, the co-accused has made false allegations against him and Tiparse by sending representation to his superior officer and by publishing news in local newspaper.

(3.) It is further contention of respondent No. 4 that he came across a news item published in 'Khadtar Pravas' newspaper that a crime of rape was registered against him on the basis of a complaint filed by a lady police officer. It is further contended that after completion of investigation, 'B' summary report was filed in the said crime and even thereafter, such news was published. It is contended that when he was taking steps to curb the illegal activities going on within the jurisdiction of the Police Station, it was published in the said news that he was hand in glove with the persons involved in illegal activities and he was receiving share in the money made by those persons. It is further contended that it was also published in the said news that he had joined hands with thieves and was getting 50% share in the property stolen by the thieves. It is contended that it was also published in the said news that for settlement of the disputes between the parties, he was extracting money from both the sides.