( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 496 OF 2009 Digambar s/o Rachandra Jakore PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. Hanmant V. Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Y.M. Kshirsagar, APP for respondent No.1/State. Mr. V.G. Sakolkar, advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. N.N. Desle, advocate for respondent No. 3. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 30th September, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned A.P.P. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of complaint (FIR) dated 05-02-2009 filed by the respondent No. 2 – Gangadhar for offences punishable under section 363, 366 and 498 of the I.P. Code. The Police Station Officer of Degloor has registered Crime No. 11/2009 on basis of the complaint. The ( 2 ) investigation is said to have been geared up. 3. The counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent No. 3, who is the wife of the respondent No.2, herself is not supporting that complaint filed by the respondent No. 2. He points out that the respondent No. 2 has filed another complaint against the respondent No.2 alleging matrimonial cruelty. The copy of said complaint dated 09-03-2009 is also placed on record. 4. The petition is based on probable defence of the petitioner as regards absence of elopement with the wife of the respondent No. 2. Secondly, the petition involves disputed questions of facts. Thirdly, it is difficult to firmly opine that no ingredient of any offence is constituted on face value of the allegations only because the respondent No. 3 – Lalitabai has filed a complaint against the respondent No.2. What prima facie appears from the tenor of the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No. 3 – Lalitabai is that she has tried to support the petitioner in the process of ( 3 ) quashing. The question whether the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 were having extramarital relationship is a question of fact. Whether the petitioner induced the respondent No. 3 to go with him is a question of fact. Whether he committed offence of adultery by keeping sexual relationship with the respondent No. 3, without consent of the respondent No. 2, is also a question of fact. These aspects cannot be determined at the premature stage. The quashing of FIR would amount to scuttling of the criminal case at premature stage. The purpose of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is not to abort the criminal proceedings only because some defence is available to the petitioner and particularly in cases where the disputed questions of facts are required to be determined. In the circumstances, therefore, the petition is dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/CRIWP496-09 ( 4 )