1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.142 OF 2009. Suresh Pundlik Aswar ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and another ... Respondents. ... Mr.P.P.Dhorde, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.S.Patil, A.P.P. for the State. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 23.07.2009. PER COURT 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The petitioner is a Stamp Vendor-cum- Bond Writer, working in the precincts of the Sub- Registrar's Office at Jalgaon. The Respondent 2 No.2 lodged FIR on 24.9.2008, against the petitioner and other co-accused persons for offences U/ss 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. Crime No.88/2008 was registered by the City Police Station, Jalgaon. The sum and substance of the report lodged by the Respondent No.2 is that a plot out of Gat No.187 has been purchased by him and by preparing a false and forged documents it was sold away by impersonating himself by accused Ulhas. The accused Ulhas impersonated himself as the Respondent No.2 (Complainant) and the other three accused assisted him in the act of preparation of false sale deed. The petitioner is named in the report only as a scribe and Stamp Vendor. 3. The petitioner would submit that he has no concern whatsoever with the transaction between the accused Nos.l to 4. He would submit that he is a Bond Writer and was required to scribe the documents as per instructions of the parties. He alleges that he has been falsely implicated in the said Criminal case. 3 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. Mr.K.S.Patil. 5. The learned A.P.P. states that charge- sheet has been filed against all the five accused. On going through the copies of the Police papers, the learned A.P.P. was unable to locate as to how the petitioner is concerned with the alleged impersonation and forgery of the document. The petitioner did not identify the main accused Ulhas as the Respondent No.2 nor he had any prior concert with them. There is no charge of Criminal conspiracy U/s 120(B) of the I.P.C. The petitioner worked only as a Bond Writer in the course of his day today business of scribing such documents. He could not have been roped as accused in the context of offence of impersonation or forgery. Needless to say, there is no specific allegation against the petitioner to attribute any criminal charge to him. Hence, his prosecution vide the impugned FIR would amount to abuse of the process of law. 6. Considering the foregoing reasons, I am 4 inclined to hold that the impugned FIR to the extent of the petitioner is liable to be quashed. Hence, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR to the extent of the petitioner is quashed and the proceedings arising out of the same only to the extent of the petitioner are quashed though Criminal Case may proceed against the remaining four (4) accused persons. The learned Magistrate shall pass order of discharge to the extent of the petitioner in view of the quashing of the proceedings. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crwp14209