1 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1002 OF 2011 Bhagwan J. Gaikwad ... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. Abhay Pande i/by M/s. Abhay Pande & Associates, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh More, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 P.C. Heard the leaned counsel for the original complainant extensively. The challenge is to recording B Summary in the report of theft caused in the rented premises. The petition discloses that petitioner, ex policeman was attached to MIDC Police station. He is no more in service being terminated. He has long drawn controversies with his superiors as he claims termination to be unceremonious. The Petitioner claims, earlier he was illegally drawn out of his service quarter and hence was required to shift to 12, White House, Marolgaon, Andheri East, Mumbai 400 059 on leave and licence agreement for the period from 3.10.2005 to 2.9.2006. Petitioner denies his acquaintance with the wife of said Alwyn Quadris. This is contrary to 2 record as in the leave and licence agreement is witnessed by the said lady including signature of the petitioner. The investigation carried illustrate that before the alleged incident of 28.2.2008, at 3.00 p.m. the premises in question was vacated by the petitioner one month prior thereto. This has been said during the enquiry by three witnesses named by the police officer. The Petitioner claims malice against his colleagues of MIDC police station as according to him they generate venom to ensure that he is put to loss. On going though B summary report and submissions, I find that the police officers had no reason to nurse malice against the petitioner, whatever was available on record, they carried investigation and found that the accusations of committing theft, robbery, extortion by 10 to 12 persons or forcibly dispossessing the petitioner are imaginary events. The submissions of the learned counsel that based on his FIR he should have been allowed to lead evidence, is foreign to the procedure. "B" summary report was received by the petitioner under protest. He did not venture to lead any evidence or tender documents to substantiate his contentions. The order of B summary recorded does not call for interference. Petition dismissed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)