JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)In present petition, the three petitioners have prayed, inter alia, that:
"9(a) To quash and set aside the impugned FIR vide ICR No.46/09 dated 16.3.2009 of Shahpur Police Station for the offences under sections 379, 511, 294(b), 506(1) and 114 of IPC and section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act as per AnnexureA;
(b) PENDING THE HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL OF THIS PETITION, BE PLEASED to stay further investigation and other proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR vide I CR No.46/09 dated 16.3.2009 of Shahpur Police Station for the offences under sections 379, 511, 294(b), 506(1) and 114 of IPC and section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act as per AnnexureA;"
(2.)At the outset, it is relevant to mention that an incident occurred on 16.3.2009. In connection with the very same incident dated 16.3.2009, two complaints/FIRs came to be filed. One of the two sides in the said incident (i.e. present respondent) filed complaint/FIR on the same date, i.e. 16.3.2009 which came to be registered as I CR No.46/2009, whereas the second complaint came to be lodged more than three days after the date of incident. The said second FIR came to be lodged on 20.3.2009 and was registered as II CR No.3024/2009.
2.1 The said second FIR was lodged by another officer of the company and not by the persons concerned in / with the incident.
2.2 It is pertinent that the said second complaint No.3024/2009 has, after investigation, culminated into chargesheet and criminal case which is pending in the Court.
2.3 This petition is filed against the aforesaid first complaint / FIR dated 16.3.2009 which is registered as I CR No.46/2009.
(3.)So as to consider and appreciate the relief prayed for by the petitioners in present petition, it is necessary to take into account the allegations in cross complaints and the events leading to presentation of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3.1 It has emerged from the record and from the submissions by the learned advocates for the petitioners and the respondent that the incident in connection with which the two FIRs came to be lodged and present petition is taken out, allegedly occurred on 16.3.2009.
3.2 In connection with the incident which allegedly occurred on 16.3.2009, present respondent filed a complaint before Shahpur Police Station on the same day, i.e. on date of the incident (on 16.3.2009) and the said FIR/complaint came to be registered as I CR No.46/2009. According to the said FIR (filed by the respondent), the incident occurred at around 11.00 a.m. on 16.3.2009 and the complaint came to be lodged at around 1.10 p.m. on the same day, i.e. on 16.3.2009.
3.3 Whereas, on behalf of the present petitioners (who are the persons involved in and concerned with the said incident dated 16.3.2009), another person/officer of the company (wherein the three petitioners are employed) filed the complaint, in connection with the very same incident dated 16.3.2009 (after delay of more than three days) on 20.3.2009 at around 7.25 p.m. which came to be registered as II CR No.3024/2009.
3.4 Thus, in connection with the said other / second FIR dated 20.3.2009 not only there is gap of about three days between the date of incident, i.e. 16.3.2009 and dated 20.3.2013 of FIR, but another relevant aspect is also involved, viz. that the complaint came to be filed not by the persons concerned in the incident, i.e. the three petitioners, but by some other person, i.e. another officer of the company, wherein the persons concerned in the incident are employed.
3.5 So far as the complaint filed by present respondent is concerned (which, as aforesaid, came to be filed on the same date, i.e. on 16.3.2009 when the incident allegedly occurred) the complainant has alleged offence under Sections 379, 511, 294(b), 506(1) and 114 of IPC and section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. Whereas in the complaint which came to be subsequently filed on 20.3.2009 on behalf of the petitioners, i.e. the persons allegedly involved in the incident, the complainant has alleged offence under Sections 323, 294(b) and 506(1) of IPC.
3.6 Thus, the incident in connection with which the two sides have initiated criminal proceedings is the same, but the versions of two sides are different.
3.7 The petitioners herein, i.e. the persons involved in the incident in question, are employees who are employed as Technicians in a limited company which is engaged in generation, transmission and supply of electricity, whereas respondent No.2 herein is an employee in one of the textile mills in the city and he is one of the residents as well as Secretary of the housing society, wherein the alleged incident occurred. The petitioners have alleged that the respondent is connected with the political party and he has filed false complaint against the petitioners.
3.8 The first FIR, i.e. I CR No.46/2009 is filed by present respondent who has alleged, inter alia, that on 16.3.2009 while he was going to his office he said three persons (i.e. the petitioners) working at / near the electric installations of the apartments in the society. He also alleged that in his capacity as Secretary of the housing society, he had received various complaints from the residents that employees of the electric company visit the society frequently and on pretext of checking the installations, they tamper with the meters and steal parts like fuse. The respondent alleged in the complaint that when he saw the three persons working at the electric installation and observed them working he gathered impression that they were trying to commit theft of fuse so he started questioning them when the three persons got angry and wild with him and abused him in filthy language and also threatened him with serious consequences if he interfered with them or with their work and that one of them also carried a sharp weapon with which they threatened him and then they left the society. The said complaint is registered as I CR No.46/2009 and present petition is preferred with request to quash the said complaint.
3.9 The investigation in connection with this complaint is stayed since December, 2009.
3.10 On the other hand, in the second complaint which came to be filed on 20.3.2009, i.e. three days after the alleged incident and came to be registered as II CR No.3024/2009, it is alleged that on 16.3.2009 three employees were visiting different locations which are situate within the supply area of the electricity company and they were checking the installations. The said complaint was not lodged by the said three employees but other officer of the company. It is also alleged in the FIR/complaint dated 20.3.2009 that on 16.3.2009, during routine visit, they had also gone to a housing society, viz. Borsali Apartment where they were checking the installations, i.e. electric meters and the fuse, etc. and while they were inspecting the said installations, the respondent of present petition, i.e. complainant in the FIR dated 16.3.2009 approached them and started abusing them and alleged that they were tampering with the meters and/or committing theft of fuse, etc. and the respondent also committed assault and that, therefore, they left their work incomplete and went out of the society and after reaching the company's office, they reported the incident to their superior. It is further claimed that subsequently (i.e. three days after the incident) on 20.3.2009, the security officer lodged the FIR on behalf of said three persons which came to be registered as II CR No.3024/2009. The said FIR No.3024/2009 has, after investigation, culminated in chargesheet and in criminal case which is pending in the Court.
3.11 The present petitioners, i.e. the said three employees of the company have taken out present petition with a request that the complaint/FIR filed by the respondent, i.e. the complaint registered as I CR No.46/2009 dated 16.3.2013 may be quashed.
4. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to note that on earlier occasion, present respondent had preferred application being Criminal Misc. Application No.6576 of 2009 with similar request, i.e. with a request that the complaint filed by the security officer of the company, i.e. II CR No.3024/2009 dated 20.3.2009 may be quashed. It appears that the said petition came to be dismissed by the Court vide order dated 10.11.2009 (which was preferred by the present respondent against the complaint filed by the security officer of the company), which reads thus:
"Heard learned Advocate Mr.Mehta for the applicant. Learned advocate for the applicant states that CR No.3024/2009 dated 20.03.2009, a copy of which is produced at AnnexureB, is not legible to him and therefore, he has produced a typed copy at page No.23. On reading of the same, it does not make out any sense. Hence, the application is dismissed for want of necessary document."