YOGESH SHANKARLAL GUPTA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for Applicant and learned APP for Respondent No.1. Nobody appears for Respondent No.2. Learned APP however, invited out attention to affidavit filed by Respondent No.2.

(2.) Applicant prays for quashing of FIR No. 213 of 2006 registered at Worli Police Station, Mumbai under Section 353 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. This Court has on 07.09.2006 stayed proceedings. That interim order continues to operate even today.

(3.) Counsel for Applicant submits that as the work in office of Respondent No.2 was not being attended to and on 20.06.2006 bribe was demanded, after communicating to the staff there, that matter would be reported to Anti Corruption Bureau, applicant came out and also made a phone call to office of Anti Corruption Bureau. Thereafter, papers were collected by staff of Respondent No.2 by contacting him outside the office and he was asked not to make any complaint to Anti Corruption Bureau. On next day, Respondent No.2 filed a false complaint against the Applicant implicating him in the offence under Section 353 and under Section 3(1)(x). He has taken us through the relevant record to substantiate contention.