1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3093 OF 2009 Bhausaheb S/o.Gangadhar Dongare, APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and another RESPONDENTS Mr.R.P.Bhoomkar, learned counsel for applicant Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned APP for respondent State. Smt.Sabahat Kazi, learned counsel for respondent no.2. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 15/02/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for quashing and setting aside Crime No.I-132/2009, registered in Vaijapur Police Station dated 27/06/2009, registered on the complaint of respondent no.1 Rangnath Maruti Sawant and also prayed for stay to the further investigation and prayed for anticipatory bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with the said offence. 2. Before proceeding further, it is to be noted that earlier bail application no.2624/2009 and 3634/2009 were filed by the present 2 applicant alongwith the others. For the reasoned order respectively dated 04/08/2009 and 06/10/2009, my brother judge (Shri.K.U.Chandiwal, J.) has rejected those applications. In the said orders, the detailed role played by the present applicant is discussed at length. In the premise, without challenging those orders before the appropriate court, this is a third time on the part of the present applicant to approach this Court for the same prayer. It is to be noted that within time, the offence earlier registered u/s. 326 of IPC alongwith other offences was withdrawn and if it is so, then the remaining offences are bailable offence and the applicant may approach to the Trial Court for regular bail after surrender. 3. Considering the prayer about quashing of the FIR, it is to be considered whether the role played by the present applicant is specifically mentioned and witnessed from the evidence of other witnesses or not required serious consideration. During the course of submissions across the bar, it is urged that earlier there was dispute between the present applicant one Wenubai Gaikwad who expired on 11/10/2007. A civil suit was filed in the court of Civil Judge, J.D.Vaijapur bearing RCS No.209/2007 against the present applicant and two daughters of the said Wenubai Gaikwad. Certain orders came to be passed in the said civil suit wherein the present applicant claimed that he is in possession of the property where the alleged incident took place. As he received the communication from the daughters of said Wenubai that the respondent no.2 herein alongwith his associates have entered in the said agricultural land for 3 the agricultural operation, he went there alongwith his associates. At that time, the agricultural operations were not stopped but he was assaulted and in this connection he lodged the complaint against respondent no.2 herein and others. That offence was registered on 26/06/2009 vide CR No.131/2009. It is urged across the bar that to give the counter blast to the said CR, present CR is filed against the present applicant and others wherein anticipatory bail of the present applicant was rejected twice, while the bail application of others was allowed. It is urged that there is in-ordinate delay in filing the said FIR which delay was not explained in the FIR itself. Considering the old age of the applicant, it is not possible that he may cause injury to the 2nd respondent as alleged and lastly this is a concocted story created by respondent no.2 therein, as the injuries sustained to respondent no.2 is simple in nature. Hence on all these grounds, it is claimed that the FIR lodged against him be quashed and set aside. 4. Considering these submissions across the bar and on perusal of the complaint as well as the papers of investigation, two facts are clear that the complainant has given the role played by the present applicant, as assaulted with the iron rod in his hand and assaulted on his back, neck and other parts of his body. There is no sweeping allegation against the present applicant. The role attributed to the present applicant was supported by the statement of other witnesses. Old age is not the criteria to quash the FIR, but the role played by the individual is specifically narrated in the complaint as well as supported by the statement of witnesses. No doubt, the medical 4 certificate is on record which shows that the 2nd respondent has sustained simple injuries, but the fact remains that the 2nd respondent has sustained the injuries and was referred for medical treatment alongwith police yadi and then the offence came to be registered. If it is so, on the face of it, it appears that there is an active part/involvement of the applicant in connection with CR No. 132/2009 and if it is so, the application sans any merit and deserves to be rejected in toto. In the circumstances, application stands rejected. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/FEB 2010/cri.appl.3093-09