..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2273 OF 2008 Babaji Hari Patil. ..Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.S.S.Redekar, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms.A.A. Mane, APP, for State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 7th October, 2008. DATED : 7th October, 2008. DATED : 7th October, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant-orig.accused and the learned APP for the State. None appears for respondent No.2-orig.complainant though served. 2. The applicant-orig.accused is seeking quashing of FIR No.370 of 2007 of Worli Police Station and proceedings relating thereto. The said case is under Sections 354 and 509 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The complainant lodged the FIR in question against the present applicant on 9.10.2007 at Worli ..(2).. police station. The case of the complainant is that the incident took place on 25.5.2007. There were previous disputes between the complainant and the present applicant. In the FIR the complainant has stated that on 25.5.2007 at about 1:35 p.m., when she was standing near the bus-stop at that time the applicant came on a motor-cycle. On seeing the complainant he told her "yetes ka". On saying so, the applicant pulled the right hand of the complainant. Thereafter, the applicant went away. After some time, both of them reached the office of Milk Dairy at Worli. As the complainant was enraged she started muttering some words against the applicant and a scuffle took place between them. The applicant called the police on his cell-phone. The police reached the spot and both the applicant and the complainant were taken to Worli police station. At Worli police station, N.C. complaints came to be lodged by the complainant as well as the applicant against each other. 4. The N.C. lodged at Worli police station by the complainant against the present applicant is N.C. No.1505 of 2007 dated 25.5.2007. The said N.C. pertains to the very same incident which took place ..(3).. between the complainant and the present applicant and which is reflected in the FIR pertaining to C.R. No.370 of 2007. 5. I have perused the said N.C.. In the said N.C. the complainant has stated that on 25.5.2007 at about 1:35 p.m., when she was standing near the bus-stop at that time the applicant came on a motor-cycle. On seeing the complainant he told her "yetes ka" (coming with me). Thereafter, the applicant went away. Thus, it is seen from N.C.produced by the learned APP that first in point of time the complainant has only mentioned the facts as stated above. There is no reference to the applicant pulling her right hand. Moreover, it is seen that the incident took place on 25.5.2007 and the FIR has been lodged only on 9.10.2007 i.e. after a delay of almost over four months. Looking to the copy of the N.C. produced by the prosecution and the delay in lodging the FIR, it is clear that no incident of pulling the right hand of the complainant took place and the complainant has falsely implicated the present applicant on account of previous dispute. 6. In this view of the matter, the FIR is quashed ..(4).. in respect of Section 354 of IPC. However, as far as Section 509 of IPC is concerned, the N.C. as well as F.I.R. show that case under Section 509 of IPC is made out against the applicant. Hence, no case is made out for quashing Section 509 of IPC. 7. Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)