1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CR.WP/680/2010 BABASAHEB JANARDHAN WAKHARE V/S THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ... Shri Nitin Tribuhwan, Advocate for the petitioner Shri N.R.Shaikh, APP for respondents. ... CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH & S.S.SHINDE,JJ. Dated : 12.8.2010 PER COURT :- 1. Heard respective counsel. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with following prayers. “(A) The Criminal Writ Petition may please be allowed. (B) By issuing writ of mandamus, orders or directions in the like nature, the respondents Nos.2 and 3 may please be directed to conduct proper and necessary enquiry as per the complaints dated 24.9.2007, 1.9.2008, 22.4.2010 etc. within stipulated period and to take further legal action against the concerned. (C) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 may please be directed to initiate action against the respondent No.4. (D) Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, the respondents Nos.2 and 3 may please be directed to conduct proper and necessary enquiry as per the complaints dated 24.9.2007, 1.9.2008, 22.4.2010 etc. within stipulated period. (E) Any other suitable and equitable relief may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner.“ 2 3. It is clear from these prayers that writ of Mandamus is sought against respondents 2 and 3 to conduct proper and necessary enquiry as per the complaints dated 24.9.2007, 1.9.2008, 22.4.10 etc. within stipulated period and to take further legal action against the concerned. This seems to be the principal prayer in the petition We have also considered other prayers. 4. When this petition was before this Court on 24.7.2010, we have issued notices restricted to respondents 1 and 2 only and directed respondent No.2 to file affidavit on/or before the returnable date explaining the action, if any, taken by him on the representation of the petitioner (Exhibit “E”). Today, affidavit, in view of the earlier order passed by this Court, is filed. It is sworn by Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar. It is taken on record and marked Exhibit “X” for reference. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel present before the Court, we have considered the pleadings of the petitioner and entire affidavit in reply filed by respondent - Superintendent of Police. In paragraph No.11 a statement has been made to the effect that; "... Further it was transpired during the inquiry that, the police constable Shri Garje had not submitted report as per the satisfaction of the petitioner, due to this fact he had made accusation against the police constable Shri Garje apart from that, if there is any prima facie misdemeanor on the part 3 of respondent no.4 is found, then the strict action provided under the law will be taken..." 6. We accept this statement on oath. In our view nothing remains in this writ petition It is not a case, wherein, powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India needs to be exercised to adjudicate the disputed questions of facts. We have also noticed that respondent No.4 Garje - Police Constable, who was not put on notice by this Court, has been transferred from Newasa to Sonai Police Station. 7. In the result, writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. (S.S.SHINDE,J.) (S.B.DESHMUKH,J.) ... akl