1 wp2828.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2828 of 2010 Suresh Baburao Shinde ....Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & anr. ....Respondents Mr. S.G. Deshmukh with G.T. Kanchanparkar-advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Umesh Mankapure-advocate for respondent no.2. Mr. K.V. Saste-APP for the State. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND P.D.KODE, JJ. DATED:- OCTOBER 26, 2010. P.C. Considering the contents of the FIR, it is seen that the role of the Petitioners in the commission of offence has been specified. Going by the FIR, it is not possible to countenance the argument that the FIR should be quashed, insofar as Petitioners are concerned. Indeed, it was argued before us that the complaint has been registered at the instance of the person who was not present at the time of commission of offence but elsewhere. That, however, cannot be 2 wp2828.10 the basis of quashing the FIR. The argument of the Petitioners that the Petitioners have been roped in on account of political rivalry does not commend to us. The fact remains that after registration of FIR, investigation has been done by the local police and eventually chargesheet has been filed against the Petitioner. At this distance of time, it may not be appropriate to quash the FIR. Moreso, if the material collected during the investigation were to reinforce the contents of the FIR disclosing the overt act of the Petitioner in the commission of the offence. Dismissal of this Petition, however, will not come in the way of the Petitioners to move the concerned Court for discharge, if so advised. As chargesheet has already been filed, all questions in that behalf will have to be decided on its merits. Petition disposed of on the above terms. (P.D.KODE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)