( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 417 OF 2009 Bharat s/o. Sopan Muley and Anr. .. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents Shri M.B. Kolpe, Advocate for the petitioners. Mrs. B.R. Khekale, A.P.P. for respondent No.1. Shri B.A. Dhengle, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 28.01.2010 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri M.B. Kolpe for the petitioners, A.P.P. Mrs. B.R. Khekale for respondent No.1 and Adv. Shri B.A. Dhengle for respondent No.2. This is a petition filed for quashing of F.I.R. registered as Crime No. 29 of 2009 at Dhoki Police Station, Dist. Osmanabad. The crime is registered for offences punishable under sections 354, 323, 504 and 506 read with section 34 of I.P.C. 2. Briefly stated, Kamal Muley lodged complaint at ( 2 ) police station on 11.03.2009 at 3.00 p.m. alleging that on 10.03.2009 she was alone in her land watering sugarcane crop. It was about 4.00 p.m., when petitioner No.1 came and questioned her why a case was filed against him and started abusing. Complainant – Kamal told him not to abuse and thereafter petitioner No.1 gave her kicks and fists blows, fell her down and started scuffling with her with bad intention. At that time petitioner No.2 also came and started scuffling with the complainant with bad intention. The complainant raised shouts. Her bangles were broken. Due to the shouts, both the petitioners ran away. At night when respondent No.2’s husband and son came home, Kamal informed them the incident and lodged complaint. 3. It is argued before this Court that the complaint is creation of civil dispute. Already proceedings for offence punishable under section 107 of Cr.P.C. are filed against the petitioners. The petitioners and respondent No.2 have their lands adjacent to each other. They have dispute over way and therefore this false case is filed. 4. At this stage this writ petition is confined to ( 3 ) quashing of F.I.R. It cannot be said from complaint itself that it was necessarily a false complaint. The incident was probable. Petitioner No.1 has said that he is a lecturer and he was not present in the village at that time. But this is a matter of evidence. Admittedly, already charge-sheet is filed by police and the matter is pending in the Court. In the circumstances, in my opinion, this is not a case where F.I.R. can be quashed. At the most, if there is no evidence, the petitioners have liberty to apply for their discharge before the Trial Court. 5. With said liberty, the writ petition is dismissed and disposed of. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/JAN10/crwp417.09