1 Cri.WP No.592/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.592/2010 Shaikh Mukhtar s/o Shaikh Noor Ali - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The State of Mah. and Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.PG Godhamgaonkar, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.VH Dighe, APP for State. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 14th February, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Heard Mr.Godhamgaonkar and learned APP. Rule, returnable forthwith, by consent, heard finally. 2) The petitioner, a constable at Nanded, seeks quashment of Crime No.132/2010 (non- cognizable) registered at Vazirabad Police Station, Nanded, asserting that it is a fabricated and manufactured F.I.R., having traces to the activities of the petitioner, hauling his superiors of their indecent behaviour way back 25 years earlier, whereby the petitioner was suspended/terminated on false accusations. The 2 Cri.WP No.592/2010 petitioner was subsequently successfully reinstated in service, still the officials had grudge against him. 3) The predominant thrust from the learned counsel for the petitioner is to the suspension order recorded by learned Superintendent of Police, Nanded vide out ward No.SB/170(11)/2010/6238 dated 17.4.2010. According to him, since the offence is registered by the police, having occasioned on 17.4.2010 at 12.00 noon, with exemplary acceleration, the suspension order was recorded by the Superintendent of Police. According to him, this is all a managed show to teach the petitioner a lesson of having taken to task his superiors for their mis-deeds. 4) At this stage of the matter, though the learned Counsel is justified in pointing the so- called haste, demonstrated by the Superintendent of Police and not following or adopting the same scale to another constable Shri Anil Mupade, however, in the reply this has been tried to be explained by the officers, informing that the affairs in Crime No.281/2009 by Anil Mupade were not of such gravity to involve his immediate suspension; while the accused/petitioner in the instant case, for the affairs dated 17.4.2010 was 3 Cri.WP No.592/2010 in police uniform, when he abused the complainant, in presence of other two police staff and several others. 5) At this stage of the matter, much significance to the haste demonstrated by the learned Superintendent of Police, need not be coined. Reading the F.I.R. as a whole, the parameters, as enunciated by the the Apex Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajanlal and Bhajanlal and Ors, reported in 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, would hardly be surfacing to quash the proceedings in question, nothing to germane that it is sheer abuse of process or law or that the hotelier has been used as a stooge to implicate the accused/petitioner. 6) In the result, the quashment of Crime No.132/2010 does not seem, at this sage, to be an outcome of earlier events of 1984 or 1989. Consequently, the writ petition lacks merit, dismissed, Rule discharged. No costs. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/