DILIP PURUSHOTTAMRAO PATHAK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 22.10.2007 vide which the application filed by the present petitioner for discharge under section 227 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner at the relevant time was working as Senior Clerk at Tahsil Office, Dharmabad, who was incharge of Food & Civil Supplies department. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was a member of the raiding party which had effected raids on three shops and that the complaints were registered against those shop owners in view of the said raids. It is also his contention that certain complaints were also registered at his instance against some shop owners under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act. It is the contention of the petitioner that one Vijaya w/o Dashrath Punawad had filed a false complaint against him in the office of Superintendent of Police, Nanded alleging therein that the applicant had helped her in availing the benefits of "Sanjay Gandhi Niradhar Yojana" and in return thereof had demanded sexual relationship with her. It is further stated in the complaint that complainant had physical relationship with the applicant and due to that she became pregnant. It is further alleged that petitioner also tried to commit rape on her daughter Sarita. It is further alleged in the complaint that on being enquired about the same, Sarita poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. However, due to threats given by the petitioner, she did not lodge complaint with the police. On the basis of this allegation, a chargesheet has been filed against the petitioner and the case stands committed to the court of learned Sessions Judge. It is submitted by the petitioner that since there is no material against him, he has filed application for discharge under section 227 of Cr.P.C. The same is rejected. Hence the present petition.

(3.) Shri. Jadhavar, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely involved in the present case at the instance of persons who were affected by the raids carried out by him. It is submitted that complaint filed by respondent no.2 is false. He further submits that prosecution has also conducted D.N.A. test in which it is found that the child born to respondent no.2 is not of the petitioner. He further submits that there are inconsistencies in the statement of the complainant so also her daughter.