1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1786 OF 2008 DIST.: NASHIK Deoram Parvatrao Sathe ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Rajshekhar V. Govilkar for the Petitioner Mrs. A.S. Gadkari, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 2008 P.C.:- The Writ Petition is filed only with one grievance that the respondents have not implemented the order passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 745 of 2007 on 12th July, 2007. The order of the Court reads as under:- “1. The learned APP on taking instructions states that the police have decided to register the FIR on the basis of the complaint 2 dated 10.3.2007 and Mr. Rauf Shaikh, P.I., is the Investigating Officer in the matter. We accept the said statement and as police have decided to register the FIR and investigate the matter in relation to complaint dated 10.3.2007, nothing further survives in the petition. Needless to say that the Investigating Officer is expected to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible. We however make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on any of the points sought to be raised in the petition. We also make it clear that pursuant to the registration of FIR, in case the police would require to arrest the persons named in the complaint, they should give advance notice of at least 72 hours to the petitioners. Petition accordingly stands disposed of. Interim directions stand vacated. 2. ...” 2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the matter was investigated, and a charge has already been filed against the persons against whom the police found evidence. As such, this petition has only been filed to achieve some result, which cannot be achieved otherwise. This is an abuse of process of law. Since the police have not found anything against some of the accused, therefore, in order to blackmail the police, the fresh petition has again been filed, although the petitioner knew that the order of this Court has been implemented, and as a result thereof, a charge has already been filed. Yet he chose to come 3 to this Court, complaining that the order of this Court has not been implemented. 3. Therefore, we impose costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) on the petitioner, to be paid to the State Legal Services Authority within two weeks. The petition is dismissed. BILAL NAZKI, J. A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J.