1 6WP.1897-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1897 OF 2011 Kranti @ Mansi Brahmanand Naikwadi and another. ..Petitioners. Vs. State of Maharashtra and 2 others. .. Respondents. .......... Mr. Avinash Kamkhedkar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mrs. A.S. Pai, A.P.P. for the State. Mr. Chandrakant Ghodke, Sr.P.I. Kothrud Police Station, Pune is present. .......... CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR AND P. D. KODE, JJ. DATED : 20th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. By this Petition, the petitioners essentially have challenged the Station Diary No.6 of 2010 dated 28th October, 2010 registered at Kothrud Police Station, Pune. This station diary entry is challenged on the ground that the factual position recorded therein is incorrect. Besides, the Department has initiated action against the petitioners on the basis of the said station diary entry. Further, the Petitioner No.2 was placed under suspension in contemplation of departmental proceedings. 2. However, on the previous occasion, learned APP on instructions, informed the Court that the suspension order has been withdrawn. PPD 2 6WP.1897-11 Learned APP further stated that even if the suspension order is withdrawn, departmental action against petitioner No.2 would proceed. In the light of this submission, Counsel for the petitioners contended that the Court may have to consider the relief as claimed by the petitioners in terms of prayer clause 17(a) of quashing the concerned station diary entry. Insofar as this submission is concerned, learned APP stated on instructions of Mr.Ghodke Sr.P.I. Kothrud Police Station Pune that the proposed departmental action against petitioner No.2 is not founded on the said station diary entry No.6 of 2010 dated 28.10.2010 registered at Kothrud Police Station, Pune, but, on some other material and allegations that would be relied upon and referred to in the charge to be served upon petitioner No.2. If it is so, it will be academic exercise to consider the relief claimed by the petitioners in terms of prayer clause 17(a). 3. Insofar as the other reliefs are concerned, Counsel for the petitioners submit that those reliefs need not be examined by the Court. 4. In the circumstances, this Petition is disposed of in above terms. (P. D. KODE, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)