1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.3426 of 2008 (Sahebrao Tukaram Wevhal v. State of Maharashtra, through PSO, PS Lonar, Buldhana and another) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Shri V.M. Deshpande, Advocate for Applicant. APP for State. CORAM : R.C. Chavan, J. DATE : 13th October, 2008 This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the investigation commenced by Police Station Lonar in Crime No.91 of 2008. Charge sheet in the case has already been filed against the applicant. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. He states that on the same day, the applicant's son had in fact filed a report against the complainant's husband for an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and that this report was a counter-blast to the earlier report, and, therefore, it ought to be quashed. He further states that there is a contradiction in the statements of the complainant and the witnesses, who saw the applicant leaving the complainant's house. The complainant had stated that when the applicant embraced her and started to undress her, she raised a cry, which attracted Rajkumar 2 and Ashok. Rajkumar had stated that on hearing the cries from the house of Purushottam, he came out from his house and saw the applicant leaving Purushottam's house and Purushottam's wife Savita was crying. Ashok had also stated that he saw the applicant leaving the house of Purushottam and Purushottam's wife was crying. Both of these witnesses had stated that on their enquiries, the complainant narrated the incident to them. Now, first, there is no contradiction of such a nature, which would make the testimonies of these witnesses improbable in order to warrant quashing of the proceedings. If the inconsistencies or contradictions in the statements of the witnesses warrant disbelief in the witnesses, the learned Trial Judge would undoubtedly take into account these so-called contradictions while hearing the parties at the time of framing of the charge, as also at the trial. Therefore, quashing of the proceedings is unwarranted. Consequently, the application is rejected. JUDGE Lanjewar