1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2072 OF 2005 Rajendra s/o Keshavrao More & ors. ..APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Mah. & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr D.B. Pawar, Advocate for the applicants; Mrs A.V. Gondhalekar, A.P.P. for respondents no.1 to 3; Mr A.N. Irpatgire, Advocate for respondents no.4 & 5 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS, J DATE : 26th July, 2010 ORAL ORDER : By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicants/original accused, against whom an offence vide Crime No.79 of 2005 , under sections 147, 149, 452, 323, 506 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 (25) of the Arms Act has been registered, prays for quashing of the first information report. 2. It appears that on the basis of the report of the complainant the aforesaid offence came to be registered. As per the first information 2 report, according to the complainant at about 2.00 p.m. the outer door of the house was opened by the present applicants and other unknown 20 to 25 persons and they entered the house. On the inmates of the house attempting to obstruct the accused, the accused committed mischief of the articles in the house by throwing them helter and skelter. Thereafter the accused are alleged to have pushed the complainant and the other inmates and thereafter applicant Rajendra More is alleged to have pointed a Pistol/Revolver and threatened to kill. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations the said offences came to be registered. 3. Mr D.B. Pawar, learned Counsel for the applicants states that the aforesaid report has been lodged against the applicants on account of the dispute between the complainant and the accused. It is also urged before me that perusal of the first information report would reveal that prima facie no offence is made out. 4. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties I have perused the first information report and according to me the first information report clearly makes out a prima facie case. According to me this is, therefore, not a fit case for interference for quashing of the first information report. In any event, this application had been filed in the year 2005 and no stay is operating since then. In that light of the matter, therefore, this Criminal Application is dismissed. It is made clear that the observations made above are made for deciding this application and 3 should not be construed as any findings on merit. In the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/criap2072.05