DHARMISHTHA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant appeal, following prayers are raised :

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that crime was registered against the appellant at Upanagar Police Station by respondent no. 2 Devidas Khandu Nerkar alleging commission of offence punishable under Ss. 3(1)(f)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [Atrocities Act] and Ss. 406, 420, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC]. He would point out that there were financial transactions between complainant and husband of appellant. That, complainant had executed sale deed in favour of present respondent with regard to a landed property on 8/8/2017. A copy of the same is also placed on record. However, after completion of said transaction, appellant further executed sale deed in favour of one Narendra Jain (Burad) and this further resulted into filing of special civil suite praying for cancellation of sale deed dtd. 8/8/2017 with prayers for specific performance of contract. Thus, it is submitted that transaction between complainant and appellant was apparently civil in nature and dispute also was primarily civil in nature. However, getting annoyed by the institution of civil proceedings, false and frivolous complaint came to be lodged against appellant alleging commission of offence punishable under the provisions of Atrocities Act and provisions of the penal code like Ss. 406, 420,506 r/w 34 of IPC. That, this court has already extended relief of anticipatory bail. That, after investigation charge sheet came to be filed. As there was no material coming out in offence, present appellant invoked proceedings under Sec. 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Cr.P.C.], but learned Sessions Judge Nandurbar passed order on 21/7/2022 rejecting the application and hence instant appeal.

(3.) It is further emphasized that complaint is motivated, more particularly in view of pending civil dispute. That, none of the ingredients of penal Sec. like Ss. 406, 420 or even 506 of IPC were available. That, there is apparently misuse of process of law by leveling false allegations of commission of offence under the Atrocities Act. That, all such crucial aspects ought to have been considered by learned Sessions Judge but it failed to do so and unnecessarily appellant is made to face criminal proceedings even without any crime was committed. Resultantly he seeks grant of above relief.