1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2639 OF 2011 Pawan Balkrishna Kshirsagar and others Petitioners versus State of Maharashtra and others Respondents Mr.Vineet Naik a/w Tushar Sonawane for petitioners. Ms.M.H.Khatre, APP for State. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR AND P.D.KODE, JJ. DATE : 27th September 2011 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP.. By this petition it is prayed that the FIR registered against the petitioner bearing No.II/3060/2011 at Nashik Road Police Station, Nashik dated 31st July 2011 be quashed and set aside. The argument is that the FIR does not disclose the ingredients of the offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. It is not possible to accede to this submission. On bare reading of the FIR it is noticed that the complainant has alleged that the accused along with his associates met the complainant at the fly over in the evening which obviously is a public place. Thereafter the accused along with his associates uttered the offending words. The argument then proceeds that presence of independent witness has not been mentioned in the FIR.. We are not impressed with this 2 submission. The material fact stated in the FIR discloses that the offence took place in public place on a fly over. The witnesses who were present at the relevant time, is a matter of collection of evidence by the Investigating Officer. That cannot be the basis to quash the FIR in question. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner then places reliance on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Balu Bajirao Galan de Vs. State of Maharashtra (2006-All M.R. (Cri)-0-3197). In our opinion, this decision is of no avail to the petitioner. In paragraph 20 of the said decision, the learned Single Judge proceeded to observe that the FIR did not disclose the element requiring presence of members of public by the allegations. The incident in that case had occurred in a Vasti and not like fly over as in the present case, which indisputably is a public place. The learned Single Judge has adverted to several decisions in the reported cases which may be useful in the cases where the investigation is complete and charge sheet is filed at the stage of discharge or after recording of evidence at the trial. As at present, going by the FIR it is not possible for us to take the view that no offence is disclosed. Hence, this petition should fail. 4. We place on record that we are not disposing of this petition on technicality that the petitioner had filed incomplete and misleading typed copy of the FIR which omitted crucial words relevant for deciding the matter in issue. After the previous order dated 16th September 2011 the petitioners have filed affidavit tendering unconditional apology. Besides, the affidavit of the advocate for petitioner no.1 Mr.Tushar Sonawane has been filed. It states that the omission of the crucial words was obviously due to inadvertence and mistake of the typist. However, the affidavit of Ms.Suvarna Lokhande, 3 typist of the advocate has not been filed. The counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners were willing to file the affidavit of Ms.Suvarna Lokhande in addition to three affidavits already filed to explain the circumstances in which the omission has crept in in the typed copy of the FIR.. We leave this question open to be considered in appropriate proceedings, if and when the learned APP takes recourse thereto. As and when such application is filed, it will be decided on its own merits. We are not expressing any final opinion on the said aspect in the present order. 5. We further make it clear that dismissal of this petition will not be an impediment for the petitioners to pursue their other remedies before the appropriate forum after charge sheet is filed. Those questions will have to be decided on its own merits. Writ Petition is dismissed. (P.D.KODE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)