1 Criminal Writ Petition No.1161/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1161 OF 2009 Rasool Khan Maheboob Khan ... PETITIONER VERSUS State of Maharashtra & anr. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri A.S. Jondhale, Advocate for petitioner Shri B.J. Sonawane, A.P.P. for respondent No.1. Shri M.G. Mustafa, Advocate for respondent No.2. ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 15th June, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. The petitioner invokes the jurisdiction in terms of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to seek quashing the charge sheet vide R.C.C. No.1606/2009 arising out of Crime No.I-106/2009 for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 325, 323 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the 2 Criminal Writ Petition No.1161/2009 learned 9th Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Aurangabad. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is the petitioner who is aggrieved as he was brutally assaulted by the respondent, in which the petitioner suffered dislocation of his teeth as has been certified by the medical officer. Based on the F.I.R. of the petitioner, prosecution is initiated against the respondent vide Crime No.105/2009, and a fighter which was used in attempt by respondent No.2 was also taken charge. 3. According to the learned counsel, the prosecution against the petitioner dated 6.5.2009 by respondent No.2, is a counterblast and, therefore, the same are to be quashed and the charge sheet should also be quashed. 4. Even if it is argued that the F.I.R. which is questioned herein is the counterblast, however, the fact remains, the events which the respondent No.2 has given in his report, at this stage, cannot be said to be a window-dressing to dilute the allegations in the F.I.R. of the petitioner. There are witnesses whose statements are also recorded by the 3 Criminal Writ Petition No.1161/2009 investigator. Even if the investigator is allegedly having hands in glows, however, for that purpose, quashment is not the solution since the witnesses implicate the petitioner with an accusation dated 5.5.2009 in the night between 9.30 to 10.00 p.m., it cannot be said that said prosecution is abuse and requires to be quashed and set aside. Everything will be decided and scanned at appropriate stage when evidence will be adduced. Consequently, I do not find the prosecution against the petitioner in terms of Crime No.I-106/2009 is false. The judgments to which the learned counsel has given reference operate in different area of the field and remotely concern with the facts in question. Criminal Writ Petition dismissed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. ) fmp/cwp1161.09