1 Cri.Appln.No.2442/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2442 OF 2011 Smt.Godawari w/o Bansi Khillare Age: 40 Yrs. Occ. Household, R/o Bhimnagar, Pathari, Tq.Pathari, Dist.Parbhani. = APPLICANT VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station, Pathari, Dist.Parbhani. 2) Smt.Laxmibai w/o Dadarao Pawar Age: 32 Yrs., occu. Business, R/o Indira Nagar, Pathari, Tq.Pathari, Dist.Parbhani. = RESPONDENTS Mr.SJ Salunke, Adv. for Applicant; Mr.NB Patil, APP for Resp.No.1-State ----- CORAM : A.H.JOSHI & A.R.JOSHI,JJ. DATE : 4th October, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: A.H.JOSHI,J.) 1) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service for Respondent No.1-State. Service on the Respondent No.2 is dispensed. Heard by consent. 2) The applicant prays for quashing of FIR No.56/2011 dated 24th March, 2011 of Pathari 2 Cri.Appln.No.2442/2011 police Station, District Parbhani for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 384 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 3) It is urged in support of challenge to the FIR, that: (a) The story contained in the FIR lodged by present Respondent No.2 is in general nature and does not contain particulars, such as date of events etc. (b) The allegations made in the FIR are vague, tainted with oblique motive and to pressurize the applicant. (C) The applicant is a social worker and actively involved in party politics and she has been slapped with the impugned FIR by the respondent No.2, falsely implicating the applicant. (d) The story described in the FIR that she has cheated the Respondent No.2, is unconscionable, totally unbelievable, false, tainted with malafides for wreaking vengeance with a view to spite the applicant out of personal grudge nurtured by her against the applicant. 3 Cri.Appln.No.2442/2011 4) Reliance is placed to support the challenge on the judgment of the Apex court in the cae of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lala and others, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604(1). Emphasis is on test no.5 set out in para No.108, and paragraph No.104 of the said judgment. 5) Based on these paras, it is urged that when the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the FIR must be quashed. 6) In order to test the submissions, we have scrutinized the facts and perused the judgment relied by the petitioner. 7) Learned APP has argued that:- (a) FIR adequately describes commission of offence. (b) Applicant's arguments are far stretched. (c) Applicant wants microscopic analysis of FIR, which cannot be allowed. 4 Cri.Appln.No.2442/2011 (d) The questions agitated by the applicant would get answered only after investigation is completed and in the eventuality of charge sheet only in the trial. He, therefore urges that the Criminal Application be dismissed. 8) We have perused the FIR in question. We have noticed that according to the applicant, since the Respondent No.2 was indulging in illegally carrying on business of country-made liquor in the locality, the applicant had complained to the police authorities, the police have conducted raids at the house of the Respondent no.2 and seized the contraband liquor and registered an offence against the Respondent No.2. According to the applicant, due to said background, the Respondente No.2 has due to revengeful attitude lodged false complaint. 9) As far as the story of cheating, referred in the FIR by the Respondent No.2, is concerned, it cannot be concluded to be false, at this stage, without completion of investigation. Therefore, it would be premature to urge and persuade that the story is concocted. 10) At this stage, and while scrutinizing 5 Cri.Appln.No.2442/2011 the challenge to FIR, what the Court is expected to see is as to whether the contents of FIR/Complaint do describe commission of offence. 11) The point as to whether the FIR is sheer abuse of process of law, lodged sheerly due to enmity and to score personal grievance/grudge and in retaliation of earlier complaints, is a matter to be borne out on facts if those are gross. It would be premature, at this stage, to hold that the FIR is a product of sheer vindictiveness barely on applicant's version that two raids on the illegal liquor business of the Respondent No. 2 were carried at the instance of the applicant. To hold, at this stage, that the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and that the proceedings are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance against the accused with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, is too big proposition to be proved without demonstration of undeniable facts and manifest on the face. Disputed facts and unilateral version cannot, at this stage, be treated to be true or to act upon to quash the FIR. 12) The manifestness has to be so gross that no one need to browse it by way of telescopic or microscopic apparatus. Solitary act of earlier 6 Cri.Appln.No.2442/2011 complaints allegedly made by the applicant and alleged enmity and/or rivalry between the parties, if utilised to negate and set aside the FIRs, there will be hardly any FIR left to be quashed. 13) In this view of the matter, Test No.5 and 6, laid down in paragraph 108 of the Judgement in Bhajanlal's case (cited supra), therefore, cannot be used as a sole ladder or lever . Said test is liable to be used as an exception and not as a device of easy access. 14) We are, therefore, of the view that the applicant has failed to make out a case for quashment of the FIR lodged against her. 15) In the result, the petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. Interim relief stands vacated. sd/- sd/- (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.H.JOSHI,J.) bdv/