Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally at the admission stage itself.

vikrant 3/56 906APL-673-2016+1.odt

2. These two Applications were heard together and as common arguments were canvassed and common issues raised, we dispose of the same by this judgment.

3. We take the facts from Criminal Application No. 1015 of 2016 for convenience.

4. The applicant therein is an Indian citizen and was serving as Director of Technical Education when this Application was filed. He is the original accused in C.R. No.164 of 2016 registered at City Police Station, Karad for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(ix), 3(2)(vi) and 3(2)(vii) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, "the Atrocities Act"), as also Sections 182, 192, 193, 203 and 219 read with 34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "I.P.C.").

5. The 2nd respondent is the original complainant.

6. The 2nd respondent alleged in this First Information Report (for short, "F.I.R.") that he is an ordinary resident of Pune. He is vikrant 4/56 906APL-673-2016+1.odt serving in the Department of Technical Education. At the time of registration of F.I.R., he was posted at the Government Distance Education Institute, Shivaji Nagar, Pune. Prior to that, he was posted in the Government College of Pharmacy at Karad as a storekeeper. In the year 2007-2008, one Mr. Satish Bhise and Mr. Kishor Burade belonging to Brahmin and non scheduled caste respectively, were posted at this College at Karad. The complainant-2nd respondent belongs to Mahar community. This fact is known to both Mr. Bhise and Mr. Burade. It is alleged that Mr. Bhise and Mr. Burade colluded with each other and communicated some information which was false and mischievous with regard to the conduct of the complainant. They have, therefore, caused an injury to him. The information that was communicated by these persons in the form of remarks, was made known to the complainant. The confidential letter dated 26 th August, 2008 from the Joint Director of Technical Education, Divisional Office, Pune apprised the complainant of these remarks. Therefore, the complainant addressed a letter to Joint Director and simultaneously, on 19th September, 2009, approached the Karad Police Station. Then, he narrated the nature of the vikrant 5/56 906APL-673-2016+1.odt information communicated by Mr. Bhise and Mr. Burade. He states that the annual confidential report of the complainant for the year 2007-2008 contained these remarks (information). These remarks, according to the complainant, are that he is in the habit of making false complaints, that he does not deserve any promotion, that he requires more and extensive training, that he is not fit to work at the regional level. These remarks, according to the complainant, are false and mischievous and entered in his annual confidential report so as to cause injury to him. This act is attributed to Mr. Satish Bhise. As far as Mr. Kishor Burade is concerned, in the same year, he has reported that the complainant's integrity and character is not good. Rather, he is lacking on both counts. This is also a false and frivolous remark and entered in the annual confidential report so as to cause insult and injury to the complainant. It is alleged by the complainant that the said remarks were false has now been proved and established. It is alleged that both of them deliberately and in connivance and collusion with each other, entered and communicated these remarks so as to cause injury to the complainant. Both Mr. Bhise and Mr. Burade are Government vikrant 6/56 906APL-673-2016+1.odt Servants. That is how they are allegedly guilty of the offence punishable under the Atrocities Act.

"Not on Board. Taken on Board. No order."

11. However, subsequently, the date was preponed by consent of parties. A copy of this Application has been served on both, the State/prosecution and the complainant. There is an affidavit-in- reply which has been filed by the complainant-respondent no.2.

vikrant 10/56 906APL-673-2016+1.odt

12. In that affidavit, the complainant-respondent no.2 states that it is true that he made a complaint against Mr. Satish Bhise and Mr. Kishor Burade. That was for the purpose of prosecuting these officers for the offences with which they have been charged by him and referred by us hereinabove. The complainant states that for the purpose of prosecuting them, sanction under Section 197(1) of Cr.P.C. was required. Mr. Bharat Tangade, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karad, wrote a letter dated 21 st December, 2010. That letter was written to the applicant Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan, who, at the relevant time, was working as In-charge Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra State, Mumbai. The complainant then refers to the Government Resolution dated 22nd December, 2006, issued by the Home Department of the Government of Maharashtra. He also referred to a corrigendum dated 10 th January, 2007 to this Resolution.

34. Then, what is stated is that on 17th December, 2016, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karad rejected the prayer for grant of "C" Summary in F.I.R. No. 3122 of 2009 and directed the Investigating Officer to re-investigate the case, apply for sanction under Section 197(1) of the Cr.P.C. and then submit a report.

Annexure R-2 is the copy of this order dated 17 th December 2016 of the trial Court.

35. It is then pointed out that because the "C" Summary report has been rejected, there is a prima facie case against the accused.