ANUP S/O. ASHOK BIHANI Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA RAHURI POLICE STATION, TQ. RAHURI, DISTRICT AHMEDNAGAR AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Application is filed with prayer to quash and set aside the First Information Report vide Crime No.118/2016 registered with Rahuri Police Station, Rahuri, for the offences punishable under Sections 3 [1], [8], [9], [10] of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, 1989 [for short 'Act of 1989'], and Sec. 506 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code and also the charge-sheet arising out of the said crime.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that, even if the allegations in the FIR are taken at its face value and read in its entirety, an alleged offences have not been disclosed, and therefore, the continuation of the further proceedings would be abuse of process of the Court. It is submitted that, respondent no.2 has lodged the First Information Report out of vengeance, since his services have been terminated by the management. It is submitted that, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Bench at Nagpur, in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Shashikant s/o. Eknath Shinde in Criminal Application No.258 of 2013 [APL], decided on July 2, 2013, has taken a view that when there is grievance about promotion or any other grievance in relation to the services, filing the First Information Report invoking the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, 1989, is not the remedy and aggrieved persons can approach appropriate Forum for redressal of the grievance. It is submitted that, in the present case, already respondent no.2 has resorted to the appropriate remedy for redressal of his grievance, challenging the termination of his services, and therefore, the FIR deserves to be quashed.

(3.) It is submitted that, the material collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation would clearly show that, the applicants have not committed any offence which would attract the provisions of the Act of 1989. It is submitted that, there is nothing on record to show that, an alleged incident was taken place at public place with an intent to humiliate respondent no.2. The complaint filed with mala fide intention with ulterior motive, and therefore, the FIR and the charge-sheet deserve to be quashed. In support of the aforesaid contention, he also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P. and ors. AIR 2008 SC [Suppl] 634.