BHASKAR HANBIRRAO KOKARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE, heard finally with consent of parties.

(2.) THESE two applications under section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment, since the facts are almost identical. The applicants seek to quash the F. I. R. registered against them.

(3.) THE applicant in Criminal Application No. 589/07 is serving as Sub-Inspector at Sakkardara Police Station. At the relevant time he was working as sub-inspector at Tahsil Police Station. On 29-1-2006, the applicant was on patrolling duty along with Head Constable Naik and few other constables. They received an information that one Santro Car bearing No. MH31 CM 4954 is carrying illicit liquor. They intercepted that Car. In presence of panchas, search ot the said car was taken. Two cartons containing liquor bottles were found in the car and they were seized in presence of panchas. The Car and two cartons containing illicit liquor bottles were seized. The car was being driven by respondent No. 3 Chandrakant Bhagchandai. He was produced before the magistrate. The Magistrate released him on bail. Later, it is alleged that the learned Magistrate also passed an order to release the Car seized, on Supratnama. On 18-2-2006, while the applicant was at Gitanjali Chowk on duty, chandrakant/na No. 3 met him with a view to release the Santro Car. The applicant told Chandrakant to meet the Police Inspector Shri Mundewadikar of tahsil Police Station, since the Car has been deposited in Malkhana. NA no. 3-Chandrakant told that he will meet Mundewadikar at 7. 00 p. m. and he then went away. On the same day at 7. 00 p. m. the applicant was on duty at Central Avenue police Chowky. A. S. I. Raut and constable Narendra were on duty along with him. The NA 3-Chandrakant came there. The applicant told him that he is himself going to Tahsil Police Station and he should come there. Non-applicant chandrakant met P. I. Shri Mundewadikar in his cabin at 7. 30 p. m. Since malkhana incharge Shri Raut was not present, the NA 3 was asked to come on the next day. It is alleged that in the meanwhile, N. A. 3 Chandrakant had approached the Anti-Corruption Department. They laid a trap as there was an allegation that the applicant had demanded sum of Rs. 5000/- as a bribe. The applicant contends that he never demanded any bribe. The owner of the vehicle never came to the Police Station to collect the Car. Since the trap itself was unsuccessful, no offence was committed and, therefore, F. I. R. is liable to be quashed. It is also contention of the applicant that the F. I. R. is registered after ten months of the alleged incident.