(1) CRI.APP. 3717..2010+2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3717 OF 2010 Parshuram S/o Mahadev Gaikwad and anr. .. Applicants VERSUS The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3883 OF 2010 Dattatraya Mahadev Malwadkar and ors. .. Applicants VERSUS The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3786 OF 2010 Santosh S/o Hanuman Barwalkar and ors. .. Applicants VERSUS The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ... Mr. U.B. Bondar, Advocate for the Applicants Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for the respondent-State ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 1ST OCTOBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. These are Applications filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR registered at Karjat Police Station vide crime no. 157 of 2010 for offences under section (2) CRI.APP. 3717..2010+2 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 326, 452, 354, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(x) and section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under section 4 r/w. Section 24 of the Arms Act as well as under the provisions of the Bombay Police Act. 2. Heard learned Advocate for the applicants and learned APP. 3. Perusal of the FIR prima facie indicates that incident occurred on 6.9.2010 at about 6.30-7.00 am. The FIR purports to show that in all 61 accused persons gathered together and assaulted the informant as well as the other injured persons. It prima facie appears that no specific role is attributed to the applicants except the applicant no.30 and 31 i.e. Maroti Vithoba Gaikwad and Mahadeo Vithoba Gaikwad (Criminal Application no.3883 of 2010). 4. The learned Advocate for the applicants submits that all the applicants have been roped in (3) CRI.APP. 3717..2010+2 with a view to harass them and, therefore, the FIR is required to be quashed. I do not agree. This is premature stage. The investigation papers prima facie show that in all 15 persons were injured as a result of the assault including Balasaheb Chavan, Prashant Chavan, Anil Chavan, Deepak Kamble, Ramesh Chavan etc. It appears that injured Balasaheb received three incise wounds and there was fracture of radius. In other words, multiple injuries were found to have been sustained by large number of victims. Obviously, large number of assailants are involved because 15 persons could not have been injured due to assault caused by single assailant or a group of assailants comprising of less than 15 accused. Needless to say the FIR cannot be quashed merely because no particular role is attributed to the applicants except the above two applicants shown in the FIR. It is part of investigation to locate which accused is involved and in what manner had participated in the course of the incident. 5. In the result, the Applications are dismissed. However, the applicants except applicant (4) CRI.APP. 3717..2010+2 no. 30 and 31 i.e. Maroti Gaikwad and Mahadu Gaikwad be not subjected to any coercive action without giving prior notice of 10 days to them, if their arrest is required for the purpose of investigation. All interim orders are vacated. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp