1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2756 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.511 OF 2011 Mrs.Razia Aziz Shaikh .. Petitioner V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Hrishikesh Mundergi for the petitioner. Mr.Prashant Maggu for the Intervenor in Cr.Appln.No.511/2011. Mr.M.M.Deshmukh, APP for the State. Mr.S.S.Yadav, PSI attached to Kashimira Police Station, present. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE: 23rd November, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This petition is for quashing of FIR bearing C.R.No.96 of 2011 registered with the Kashimira Police Station, Thane, for the offence punishable under sections 326, 143, 144, 147 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The learned APP brought to our notice that the investigation in respect of the said offence has been completed and the chargesheet has also been filed against the seven accused including the petitioner on 17.09.2011. 3. In view of that development, the question of quashing of FIR 2 does not arise. Assuming that the petitioner can be permitted to pursue the petition further, the basis on which the petitioner is expecting the Court to interfere in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, cannot be countenanced. 4. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that the local police officials have falsely implicated the petitioner in the offence in question. According to the petitioner the offence allegedly took place on 19.03.2011, the FIR came to be registered on the same day, but the petitioner was arrested only on 14.07.2011. This according to the petitioner clearly indicates that till the petitioner was arrested, no material was forthcoming to indicate complicity of the petitioner. 5. We fail to understand how this argument can take the matter further, when, after the investigation of the case the police decided to proceed against the petitioner on the basis of the evidence gathered during the investigation, and more so, the Investigating Officer eventually having filed the chargesheet against the seven accused persons, including the petitioner. 6. It is not necessary for us to burden this order with the argument of the Counsel for the complainant that even the anticipatory bail 3 application filed by the petitioner herein on 20.03.2011 discloses the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the said offence. 7. Suffice is it to observe that the factum of delayed arrest of the petitioner cannot be the basis to assume that no offence is made out against the petitioner at all and to quash the same disregarding the material collected during the investigation. 8. Moreover, the petitioner cannot succeed on the allegation of malafide against the police official, having failed to name the concerned police official who allegedly acted against the petitioner with bias. 9. At this stage counsel for the petitioner submits that another crucial fact which will have bearing on the issue of quashing of FIR may also be noticed in this order. According to him, the remand applications filed against all the accused after 20.03.2011 make no reference to the involvement of the petitioner or the fact that the petitioner was the wanted accused till she was arrested in July, 2011. 10.For the reasons already recorded, in our opinion, even this fact will be of no avail to quash the FIR which is the relief claimed in 4 this petition. 11.Hence, this petition is dismissed. 12.In view of disposal of the writ petition itself, nothing survives for consideration in the companion Criminal Application No.511 of 2011 and the same is also disposed of. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)