SYED KAMRUDDIN SYED ISMAIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cri. P.C.) for quashing first information report vide Crime No. 153/2013 with Police Station, Patur registered under Sections 376, 354(C), 469, 471, 500, 406, 274 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

(2.) The brief facts are that, non-applicant No. 2 filed complaint on the basis of which first information report No. 153/2013 was registered with Police Station, Patur. According to the allegations in the complaint, non-applicant No. 2 was married with one Ahesonuudin Mohd. Razimoddin on 28/5/1997 and she has two sons out of the wedlock. The applicant happens to be the Secretary of a Trust, which is running one primary, one senior primary and one high school at Patur and also schools at Bawanbare, District Buldhana and Paras, District Akola non-applicant No. 2 was serving in the senior primary school of the said Trust at Patur as Assistant Teacher from 09/7/1996. The complaint was lodged against the applicant and four others, namely; (1) Sheikh Aarif Sheikh Gaffar, who is said to be working as a Clerk in the School at Paras, (2) Abdul Jabbar Abdul Gaffar, who is working as a Teacher in the School at Bawanbare, (3) Mohd. Sajid Mohd. Sadiq, who is working as a Teacher in the School at Patur, and (4) Sheikh Aasif Sheikh Wahed, who is said to be close friend and associate of the present applicant.

(3.) It was further complained that from January, 2012 to June, 2013, the husband of non-applicant No. 2 had gone to Saudi Arabia. From the year 2009, the applicant started calling non-applicant No. 2 in the office for his personal work, such as preparing correspondence and speeches, etc. The applicant made an attempt to develop intimacy with non-applicant No. 2 and it is alleged that she was threatened with life and forced to sign a resignation and her signatures were obtained on blank papers. According to non-applicant No. 2, the applicant also prepared certain video clips, which he threatened to make public. In short, non-applicant No. 2 was forced to do personal work of the applicant in the office as well as at his residence.