1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1395 OF 2009 Santosh @ Bhau Laxman Jadhav .. Petitioner V/s Sr.Inspector of Police, Satara City Police Station, Satara & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Kuldeep Patil for the petitioner. Ms.U.V.Kejriwal, APP for the State. CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 25TH JUNE, 2009. P.C.: . The peititioner is accused in CR No.260 of 2009 registered with Satara City Police Station, for the offences punishable u/s.395, 427 of the Indian Penal Code. The said CR is registered upon a complaint lodged by one Sushil Mohan Kshirsagar. 2. The case of the complainant appears to be that on 4.5.2009 at about 9.30 p.m.at night the complainant alongwith his colleagues Govind Pathan, Shivaji Patil and Somnath Shankar Kshirsagar was working in their News Channel’s office at Visava Naka, Koregaon Road, Satara. Suddenly, there was a loud noise as if a stone was thrown on the glass of their office. It is stated in the complaint that when Laxman Patil opened the door of the office, about 35 to 40 persons had gathered in 2 front of their office. Out of them one unknown person started accusing the complainant and his colleagues as to why only the programmes of certain people were aired on their channel. The mob then entered in the News Channel’s office and started destroying articles. When one of the employees of their office viz.Somnath Kshirsagar was running away the petitioner dealt a blow with a sword on him. Somnath Kshirsagar received injuries on his person. The main door of the office was damaged and several valuable articles were destroyed. The assailants ran away with money. The complaint specifically names the present petitioner as the assailant. In this petition the petitioner seeks quashing of the said complaint. 3. We have heard at some length Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that on the date of incident viz. 4.5.2009, the petitioner was in fact at Nashik and not at Satara. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the complainant in this case out of political rivalry. In support of his submissions, learned counsel Mr.Patil drew out attention to Exhibit `B’ to the petition which contains xerox copies of two receipts. He pointed out receipt dated 4.5.2009. According to learned counsel this receipt was issued to the petitioner by Traffic Police of Nashik when he had jumped the signal. Learned counsel pointed out that the other receipt indicates that on 6.5.2009 fine of Rs.100/- was paid by the petitioner for the offence of jumping signal. Leaned counsel also drew our attention to the copy of the application dated 4.5.2009 stated to have been filed by the present petitioner in Sarkarwada Police Station, Nashik in connection with missing of his Mobile Phone. It is annexed as Exhibit `C’ to the petition. The number of the mobile is stated as 9890047273. Learned counsel submitted that obviously therefore on 4.5.2009 the petitioner was at Nashik, and hence, he could 3 not have been present in Satara to commit the offence as stated in the complaint. 4. We must note the presence of Mr.K.A.Patil, PSI attached to Satara City Police Station, Mr.Prakash Vishwanath Patil, Police Constable attached to Nashik City Traffic Branch, and Mr.R.Y.Ahire, Police Hawaldar attached to Sarkarwada Police Station, Nashik, in our court today. Learned APP has produced in the court a receipt from the Nashik Traffic Police. It is a carbon copy of the receipt No.402419 dated 4.5.2009. It must be stated here that the receipt which is annexed to the petition and which is relied upon by Mr.Patil also bears the same date and number. We compared the two receipts. We find that in the carbon copy produced by learned APP there is no licence number, whereas in the copy annexed to the petition there is a licence number. Though it is not possible for us to draw a positive inference at this stage that the receipt annexed to the petition is fabricated we prima-facie feel that this makes a dent in the defence of alibi tried to be set up by the petitioner. The fine is stated to have been paid on 6.5.2009. However there is no clear averment in the petition that it is the petitioner who paid the fine on 6.5.2009. So far as application dated 4.5.2009 made by the petitioner in connection with his alleged missing of his mobile phone is concerned, learned APP has produced in the court a printout obtained by the Investigating Agency from Airtel. We find from the said printout that on 4.5.2009 during the relevant period, the petitioner had made several calls and these calls have been made from Mahuli Satara, Khed, Koregaon, Dist:Satara. If that is so, then on 4.5.2009 the petitioner must be at Satara. It is not possible for us at this stage to give a final opinion as to whether the petitioner is right or whether the prosecution is right. It is for the trial court to decide this question after the evidence is adduced. We may only say that in view of what is 4 stated above, this is not a fit case where CR registered against the petitioner can be quashed. The petition is therefore dismissed. ( SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.)