BINOD RATAN SARKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts, in brief, giving rise to the present application, are as under : That applicant No. 1 - Binod is a Secretary of Coal City Urban Cooperative Credit Society Limited, situated at Bengali Camp, Chandrapur, whereas applicant Nos. 2 to 4 are its Board of Directors. Non -applicant No. 2 - Smt. Chayna Pottdar, wife of deceased Sushmay Pottdar, lodged a complaint on 4 -1 -2013 alleging therein that she was working as a Manager in the said Society while her deceased husband was the President thereof. It is further alleged that applicants used to pressurize the deceased for passing loans involving huge amount even on accepting low security and that the applicants used to interfere in the day -to -day routine work of the deceased and also used to take commission on passing of loan. It is further alleged that the applicants used to pressurize the deceased to employ their relatives in the Society and on completion of one month of their service they used to make demand for rise in their salaries. It is further alleged that applicant No. 1 had mala fidely transferred the complainant from one branch to another branch which had caused great hardship to her as well as to her deceased husband. It is thus complained that due to such conduct of the applicants towards the deceased husband of the complainant he always used to be under mental tension and as such committed suicide on 1 -1 -2013.

(2.) ACCORDING to the applicants, after this incident of suicide of Sushmay, non -applicant No. 2 lodged false report with Police Station, Ram Nagar, on 4 -1 -2013, on the basis of which Crime No. 8 of 2013 came to be registered for an offence punishable under section 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code wherein the applicants were named and thus added as accused.

(3.) SHRI S. V. Sirpurkar, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants, submits that on bare perusal of the F.I.R., it can be seen that incident is dated 1 -1 -2013 while the report is lodged after three days of the alleged incident and thus there is every possibility of false implication of the applicants by non -applicant No. 2, who even otherwise was having grudge against the applicants while working as Manager of the said Society.