Laxuman Bhumanna Myadarwad vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 4834 Bom

                                                              Cri.W.P. No.296/2009
                                          1



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                   CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.296 OF 2009




 Laxuman s/o Bhumanna Myadarwad
 Age 42 years, Occu. Service,
 R/o Nanded. Tq. & District Nanded.                ...      PETITIONER

          VERSUS

 1)       The State of Maharashtra
          through Police Station,
          Vazirabad, Nanded.
          (Copy to be served on
          Public Prosecutor,
          High Court of Bombay,
          Bench at Aurangabad)

 2)       Sanjay s/o Kamaji Dhavale,
          Age 37 years, Occu. Unemployed,
          R/o Village Kushnali, Tq. Kandhar,
          District Nanded.                   ...            RESPONDENTS

                                   .....
 Shri M.V. Ghatge, Advocate holding for
 Shri B.N.Gadegaonkar, Advocate for petitioner
 Shri S.J. Salgare, A.P.P. for respondent No.1/State
                                   .....


                                 CORAM:       T.V. NALAWADE AND
                                              SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

                                 DATED:       20th July, 2017.

 ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. This petition is filed for relief of quashment of the

F.I.R. No.50/2007 , registered at Vazirabad Police Station, Nanded

for offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 468 and 471 of

Cri.W.P. No.296/2009

the Indian penal Code and Section 3(i)(x), 4 and 10 of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P.

for State are heard. Nobody turned up for respondent No.2

(original complainant). Present petitioner was working as a Social

Welfare Inspector, He was deputed by Social Welfare Officer to

attend the meeting dated 28/3/2005, which was held for selection

of candidates for the post advertised by Zilla Parishad. He did

attend that meeting and selection process was completed. The

submission made was that, appointment order came to be issued

in favour of one candidate on 7/5/2005.

3. The submission made and the record produced show

that, when police called present petitioner for enquiry as police

had received some complaints, he gave report on 6/11/2006 to

Social Welfare Officer and informed that probably the record of

selection was tampered to favour a candidate who was not

belonging to reserved category when the post was reserved for

reserved category candidate. It appears that, on 15/2/2007, the

complainant Sanjay Dhavale filed private complaint in which he

showed present petitioner as witness, as according to

complainant, some information was supplied by present

petitioner to him with regard to the manipulation of the record

Cri.W.P. No.296/2009

made in that process. The same complainant then gave F.I.R. to

Police Station on 26/6/2007, in which he made allegations against

all members of the Committee. In view of this circumstance, the

proceeding is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that,

when the petitioner could have been a good witness of the

incident, he is shown as accused and even in the private

complaint, said complainant Dhavale had shown him as a

witness. Learned counsel submitted that, when he had given the

report, it needs to be presumed that, after making

recommendation of the candidate belonging to the reserved

category by him, and after signing of the record by him, the

persons from Zilla Parishad had done some manipulation.

Learned counsel submitted that, due to this possibility, the F.IR.

as against the present petitioner needs to be quashed.

5. The aforesaid contention made by the petitioner can

be treated only as a case or defence of the present petitioner.

What exactly happened and when the manipulation was done,

whether it was done, is a matter of investigation. This Court

cannot presume anything only due to such contention. The so

called report given by the present petitioner, dated 6/11/2006 to

the superior officer is on record and it shows that the petitioner is

not disputing that there is manipulation in the record of the

Cri.W.P. No.296/2009

selection process. In view of this circumstance, this Court holds

that, thorough investigation is necessary and the F.I.R. cannot be

quashed. The petitioner is interested for early investigation. It

can be said that, only due to interim order of this Court, the

things are stalled. Sufficient time needs to be given to the police

to make investigation. In view of this, this Court holds that, no

relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner. Criminal Writ

Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged.

          (SUNIL K. KOTWAL)                (T.V. NALAWADE)
              JUDGE                              JUDGE



 fmp/