Bombay High Court
Ashok Sarangi And Ors vs The State Of Mharashtra And Anr on 17 June, 2019
Author: Bharati H. Dangre
Bench: Ranjit More, Bharati H. Dangre
wp-3023/19.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITON
WRIT PETITION NO. 3023 OF 2019
Mr. Ashok Sarangi and Others. ..Petitioners.
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Another. ..Respondents.
Mr. Amit Desai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prashant Pawar,
Parag Sharma, Aditi Phatak and Sanae Umrigor i/b Udwadia &
Co., for the Petitioner.
Mr. F. R. Shaikh, APP for the Respondent-State .
Coram : RANJIT MORE &
SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ.
Date : June 17, 2019.
P. C. :
1. At the outset, Mr. Desai, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners seeks leave to amend the petition so as to replace illegible documents and also to place on record additional documents. Leave as prayed for is granted. Necessary amendments be carried out within two weeks from today.
2. Heard Mr. Desai, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Mr. Shaikh, learned APP for the Respondent-State.
3. The petition is filed invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of Constitution of India and section 482 patilsr 1/ 4 ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 01:17:24 ::: wp-3023/19.
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the FIR bearing CR.No.67 of 2019 registered at Neral Police Station against the Petitioners for the offence punishable under sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The said FIR is registered in pursuance of the order made by learned JMFC, Karjat, on an application made by Respondent No.2 under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
4. Petitioners are the high ranking officers of Reserve Bank of India. The son of Respondent No.2 got employment in RBI against a reserved category post [namely, scheduled tribe], on the basis of schedule tribe certificate granted to him by the competent authority. Subsequently, it was learnt that the said certificate is withdrawn. That being position, the services of son of Respondent No.2 came to be terminated by following due procedure. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 as well as his son [ex-employee of RBI] started filing various complaints / representations with various authorities / forums / courts, and finally Respondent No.2 filed subject criminal complaint under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the JMFC, Karjat. By the order dated patilsr 2/ 4 ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 01:17:24 ::: wp-3023/19.
29th March 2019, the learned Magistrate has directed Neral Police Station to register an FIR. In pursuance of said order made by the learned Magistrate, above said FIR came to be registered. The Petitioners are also challenging this order of the learned Magistrate.
5. There is no dispute that the Petitioners are public servants. There is nothing on record to show that Respondent No.2 prior to filing of the subject criminal case before the learned JMFC, had approached the Station House Officer of concerned Police Station and had filed/made a complaint/ report under section 154(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; or for that matter, had taken up his complaint/grievance with the superior authorities of police, as contemplated under section 154(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Nor has he filed an affidavit in terms of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. [(2015) 6 SCC 287].
6. That apart, we prima facie find that services of son of Respondent No.2 came to be terminated because of withdrawal of his schedule tribe/caste certificate by the competent authority. It is submitted that termination of patilsr 3/ 4 ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 01:17:24 ::: wp-3023/19.
services of son of Respondent No.2 is not challenged either by Respondent No.2 or his son, nor the order withdrawing schedule tribe/cast certificate was challenged before any competent Court.
7. Mr. Desai, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners further made a submission that complaint filed by Respondent No.2 was kept for verification and therefore the learned Magistrate was thereafter bound to act under the provisions of Chapter-XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and he could not have issued order under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. We find merit in this ground also. We accordingly issue notice to Respondent No.2, r/o 29th July 2019.
8. In the meanwhile, there shall be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clauses (c), (d) and (e). [SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.] patilsr 4/ 4 ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 01:17:24 :::