K.K. Sonawane JUDGMENT
Sambhaji Shiwaji Shinde, J.
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties.
3. This Petition is filed with the following prayer clause:
"B] By issuing the writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction like in nature the impugned order dated 28/12/2016 in proceeding No. 2016/SAPR/EXTERNMENT/CR-127 passed by the Ld. Divisional Commissioner Aurangabad and order dated 07/10/2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer Osmanabad in proceeding No. 2016/Penal/CR-108 may kindly be quash and set aside."
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Sub Divisional Officer ought to have considered that the offences registered against the present petitioner are not serious one or against the society or dangerous to the public at large. It ought to have been considered by the authorities that only three offences are registered against the present petitioner and the same are registered only to pressurize the present petitioner. Respondent No. 3 did not take into consideration that as the present petitioner had filed complaint against the Sarpanch namely Arun Appasaheb Veer and only to give counter blow to the crime registered by the present petitioner the false case is filed by the complainant namely Arun Appasaheb Veer. It is submitted that the petitioner is working as labourer.
5. It is further submitted that the present petitioner is of 68 years old and suffering from old age problem and his economical condition is very bad. The petitioner is doing social work and due to the said work, the complainant in crime No. 52/2015 got annoyed. With an intention to stop the social activities initiated by the petitioner, false cases were filed against him by the complainants. It is submitted that the alleged offences registered against the present petitioner are false one and the same are registered only to give counter blast to the complaints filed against the complainants about their illegal activity and misappropriation of government funds and land. It is submitted that the expression 'alarm, danger or harm to person or property must be held to refer to the alarm, danger or harm to person or property of the public at large and not of one or two individual amongst the public. However, in the present case in both the cases, the complainant is one and the same. It is submitted that except three crimes, no any other crime is registered against the present petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petition may be allowed.
6. On the other hand, the learned APP appearing for the respondent - State relying upon the original record and also the reasons assigned by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the impugned orders submit that the orders passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are in conformity with the provisions of Section 56 [1] [a] of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and also keeping in view the documents collected during the course of enquiry by the respondent No. 3.
7. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned APP appearing for the respondent - State. With their able assistance, we have also carefully perused the pleadings and grounds taken in the Petition, annexures thereto, original record made available for perusal by the respondents and also the reported judgments cited across the Bar by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. At the outset, it would be apt to reproduce herein below the provisions of Section 56 (1) (a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 reads thus:
56. Removal........