wp1063.11 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1063 OF 2011 Yousuf Khan Chand Khan Pathan ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and another. ...Respondents ..... Smt. A.N. Ansari, advocate for the petitioner Smt. S.D. Shelke, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 ..... CORAM: S.B. DESHMUKH AND A.M. THIPSAY, JJ. DATED: 22nd December, 2011 P. C. :- 1 Heard learned counsel Mrs. Ansari for the petitioner. Mrs. Ansari, the learned counsel for the petitioner focus to the prayers made in the Petition, which are as follows : "A) To admit and allow this Criminal Writ Petition. B) To quash and set aside the FIR bearing crime no. 73/2011 registered with the Vazirabad Police Station, Nanded, dated 24.3.2011. C) During the pendency and final disposal of this Criminal Writ Petition further investigation based on FIR No. 73/2011 wp1063.11 -2- registered with Vazirabad Police Station Nanded dated 24.3.2011 may kindly be stayed. D) Any other relief to which the petitioner is entitled may kindly be granted." 2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we have seen the F.I.R. (Exhibit-E). It seems that the F.I.R. bearing crime No. 73/2011 has been registered on 24th March, 2011 with Vazirabad Police Station, Nanded. Based on this F.I.R. an offence punishable under Sections 379, 186, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered against the present petitioner-Mr. Yousuf Khan Chand Khan Pathan. From the F.I.R., we have noticed the name of the complainant/informant- Mr. Mahesh Madhavrao Lonikar, who at the relevant time was in the employment of Zilla Parishad, Education Department. His position was junior clerk from the Education Department. We have noticed the place of the offence, which is referred in the F.I.R. With the assistance of the learned counsel, we have also seen the accusations made in this F.I.R. by the informant. According to the informant on the date of incident, he was working in the Education Department of the Zilla Parishad, Nanded. There is primary school run by the management namely Ishwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Nanded. The name of the said school seems to be Kasturba Primary School, Tajnagar, Nanded. According to informant, the original file and the proposal for transfer of the school and the proposal for approval to the Incharge Headmistress had been taken away by the wp1063.11 -3- petitioner. It is also alleged that the original complainant was prevented while discharging his duties. This incident according to informant has taken place on 26.08.2010. The number of register i.e. bearing outward no. 1370 is also mentioned in the F.I.R. 3. Mrs. Ansari focus to the Exhibit-F (page No. 20), a copy of representation made by the petitioner to the Police Sub-Inspector, Gandhi Putala, Nanded. It reflects from this communication that the present petitioner at the relevant time i.e. on 24.03.2011 was acting as President of the School Committee. A primary school is being run. One Smt. Jaimala Patil was appointed as Incharge Headmistress for the said Primary School. The proposal for her approval was submitted to the Education Officer (Primary), Nanded. Since, there was no approval from the Education Officer (Primary), Nanded, the petitioner has informed by this communication that the petitioner is filing proceedings in the Court at Aurangabad. The proposal for that purpose is also submitted to the Education Officer. The grievance is raised that Mr. Lonikar and Mr.Waghmare have informed the petitioner that files pertaining to this School regarding the approval of Incharge Headmistress are not being traced. Hearing this from the clerk of office of the Education Officer, the petitioner made a written complaint to the Police Station by speed post and also forwarded a copy of the complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police by speed post. One copy thereof was also given to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad. According to the petitioner, complaints made by them have not been heeded by any of the authorities. Last wp1063.11 -4- paragraph of this communication makes a reference that there was an offence of theft, regarding files, registered at Police Station against the present petitioner. Apart from this communication, Mrs. Ansari learned counsel also points out one more communication dated 24th March, 2011 (Exhibit-D). This has been addressed by the Incharge Headmistress Smt.Jaimala Patil to Police Inspector, Bhagyanagar Police Station, Nanded. 4. This Court exercising powers under Article 226, 227 and/or under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in appropriate case may quash and set aside the FIR. The parameters for such exercise is laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in leading case in the case of "State of Haryana and others V/s Ch.Bhajan Lal and others" reported in "A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 604". The FIR, which is sought to be quashed, is to be considered at the face value of the accusations made in the FIR. If this Court considering the face value of the FIR reached to the conclusion that the FIR is false and frivolous, this Court may exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bhajan Lal. In the case in hand, a grievance is raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is delay in lodging the FIR as the incident is dated 26.08.2010. She points out from the FIR that the FIR is lodged on 24th March, 2011. In our opinion, the delay, if any, can not be ground at this stage for quashement of the FIR. The delay can be sufficiently explained by the informant at appropriate time. Prima facie, this FIR makes a reference of act of theft, the name of wp1063.11 -5- the present petitioner, date of incident. In substance, in our opinion, there is no case warranting quashment of FIR at this stage. The investigation is imperative. One of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite lapse of more time, the Police has not submitted chargesheet. So far as this submission of charge sheet is concerned, the Criminal Procedure Code governs the issue. In the case in hand, we are not supposed to pass any orders regarding submission of the charge sheet or otherwise. However, we are inclined to grant liberty in favour of the petitioner to raise this grievance at appropriate time at appropriate proceedings available in law. 5. We are not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy regarding the grievance that the charge sheet is not submitted after lapse of substantial time. No costs. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.) (S.B. DESHMUKH, J.) sga/