AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.H. Joshi, J.—Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the application is heard finally by consent.
Heard learned Adv. Mr. S.M. Puranik for the applicants-Petitioners, learned APP Mr. C.N. Adgokar for Respondent No. 1 and learned Adv. Mr. P.S. Tiwari for Respondent No. 2.
Petitioners pray for quashing of Special Case No. 25 of 2010 pending before Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur.
Facts, in brief, are that:
(a) On 25th August, 2010, Respondent No. 2herein lodged a complaint relating to the incident which had allegedly occurred on or about 11th August, 2008, attracting commission of offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
(b) Admittedly, Petitioners as well as Respondent No. 2 are involved in active politics.
(c) Petitioners submitted an application to the Superintendent of Police, stating that the complaint was lodged on account of being instigated by a Member of Legislative Assembly etc., and requested for withdrawal.
(d) After investigation, police filed the charge-sheet and the Special Case is pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur.
Upon impleadment of Respondent No. 2, this Court had issued notice to him. Respondent No. 2 has filed reply and supported whatever is pleaded in the petition.
To support his contention, learned Adv., for the Petitioners has placed reliance on following judgments:
(a) B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, \\, and
(b) Dhananjay Gopalrao Bahergaonkar v. State of Mah. and Anr. (Criminal Application No. 2505 of 2010; decided on 16th August, 2010 (Coram: A.V. Potdar, J. of Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad)\\.
After considering the pleadings and rival submissions, this Court is satisfied that though the criminal complaint purportedly of serious nature is filed, and has led to a charge-sheet etc., when the complainant has in unequivocal terms asserted and reiterated even be fore this Court that the complaint was filed due to being instigated and without actual commission of offence, this Court is convinced that continuing the prosecution any further would turn out to be an empty formality, and would unnecessarily tax the system, apart that ultimately it would lead to acquittal when the every foundation of the case, i.e., complainant'' s version, does not support the prosecution.
The complainant, who has stated on oath before this Court that the complaint was filed due to instigation, can not be reasonably expected to take a different stand in the Trial Court.
Considering status of parties that they are holding responsible political office, and have conceded to the position that the complaint was wrongly filed, interest of justice would be met by allowing this petition and quashing the proceedings in terms of Prayer Clause (a)\\ of the petition.
Rule is made absolute in above terms.