1 Cri.Appln.No.1219/2010 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1219/2010. ( Ramesh Vithalrao Gaikwad Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Vivek Bhavthankar, Adv. for Applicant/s; Mr. PP More, APP for State. Mr.RJ Nirmal, Adv. For Respondent No.2. *** CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 16 th June, 2011. 1) Heard. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties. 2) The applicant has urged to quash F.I.R. dated 4th March, 2010, lodged by Respondent no.2 at Parli police station, vide Crime No.22/2010 for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468 471 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3) The applicant was appointed as untrained teacher in Niwasi Muk- Badhir Vidyalaya, Parli, run by Pradnya Niketan Shikshan Sanstha, Degloor. Since the applicant was untrained teacher, the management permitted him to join training course at Training Center held at Latur. He claimed, accordingly having completed the training at Latur, a certificate to that effect was issued by the said training institute informing that the applicant has undergone the training course during the period 1996-1997. the applicant thereafter joined his duty at Parli. The society/management sent the proposal of the applicant as trained teacher/employee to the Social Welfare Officer, who granted approval of trained teacher. It is a matter of record, on enquiry made under Right to Information Act, the applicant is informed by the Social Welfare Officer that the applicant has undergone and successfully completed the said training for the period 1996-1997. 4) The applicant was suspended and consequently, a writ petition, being WP No.1822/2010 was moved before this Court. Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 6th October, 2010, set aside the suspension by 2 Cri.Appln.No.1219/2010 making rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (A) of the said writ petition. Division Bench has observed in paragraph 7 of the order as under, - 7.We have perused the communications addressed by “ respondent no.3 himself dated 3/4-10-2005 which clearly states that upon enquiry against petitioners, it has been found that nothing is incriminating against them and therefore, their salareis should be released. We have also perused the reply given to the petitioners by respondent no.3 under the Right to Information Act, which clearly states that the petitioners have completed the requisite training." 5) Considering these aspects of the matter and particularly, paragraph 7 referred above, it goes without saying that the F.I.R., subject of challenge, is filed on erroneous assumption and surmises by the authority based on an anonymous complaint. 6) Learned APP informed that the applicant has drawn salary and even he was allegedly attending the training. This question is between the management/society and the applicant as to its recovery. However, it would not give cause to the prosecution which is questioned before this court. 7) In the set of above facts, the FIR vide FIR No.22/2010, registered against the applicant/accused, is set aside. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/