KBP 1 cr.wp.3597-10.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3597 OF 2010 Ahsok Suresh Rach ..Petitioner Vs State of Maharashtra and anr. ..Respondents -- Mr.N.B.Sawant, for petitioner. Mr.R.Sathyanarayanan i/b.Ms.Latif Jain, for respondent no.2. Ms.S.D.Shinde, APP for respondent State. -- CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 15 th DECEMBER, 2011 P.C.: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] This petition is for quashing of FIR as also Charge Sheet filed by the police consequent to the conclusion of the investigation in relation to FIR No.210/2010 registered at Bangur Nagar Police KBP 2 cr.wp.3597-10.odt Station, Mumbai dated 2 nd July, 2010. 3] The first ground urged before us is that, admittedly, the petitioner was not present at the scene of offence. That is a matter of evidence and defence. That cannot be a ground for quashing of FIR. The FIR has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 34, 506 (2) of Indian Penal Code. The involvement of the accused has been mentioned by the witnesses who were present at the relevant time. 4] The second ground urged before us is that the present complaint has been filed as counter blast to the complaint filed by the petitioner against the accused persons in April, 2010. In our opinion, even that is a matter of evidence and defence which will have to be considered at the time of trial. 5] In our opinion, the grounds urged before us do not persuade us to take a view that the FIR is founded on false, baseless and untenable facts. The fact that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case in the past, by itself, cannot be a ground for KBP 3 cr.wp.3597-10.odt quashing the FIR and Charge sheet. We had given option to the petitioner to approach the concerned Court for discharge, if he so desires. He did not avail of that option and insisted that this Court considers the matter and the petitioner would not take recourse to the remedy of discharge if the arguments of the petitioner were to be rejected by this Court. As a result, the petitioner will have to participate in the trial. 6] Thus, petition fails and the same is dismissed. 7] At this state, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court may observe that the trial Court should not be influenced by the observations made in this order. It is stating the obvious. No further observations are necessary. [R.G.KETKAR, J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.]