1 wp3426.10 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3426 OF 2010 Laxmikant Madhav Kulkarni ....Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. ....Respondents Mr. Varsha Palav with Ms. Anagha Nimbkar and Ms. Prajakta Mhatre i/b. Siddharth Karpe, advocate for petitioner. Mr. P.A.Pol, PP for State. CORAM:- P.V.HARDAS AND M.N.GILANI, JJ DATED:- APRIL 29, 2011 P.C. 1 This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed by the Petitioner, for quashing of the First Information Report dated 25/4/2008. It appears that the Petitioner is named in the First Information Report at Sr.No.6 in paragraph-5. With the assistance of the learned PP and the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, we have perused the First Information Report. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner points out that the name of the Petitioner as is disclosed at Sr. No.6 is Shri L.S.Kulkarni. Learned PP states on instruction and on the basis of the papers of 2 wp3426.10 investigation that there appears to be a typographical mistake in respect of initial of the Petitioner and that there is substantial material to indicate that the Petitioner was a member of that Society. It is further disclosed in the affidavit in reply on behalf of the State that the investigation is in progress. Learned PP further states that the material collected so far prima facie indicates involvement of the present Petitioner. 2 Petitioner’s principal contention is that at the relevant period the Petitioner was not a member of the Society and consequently, the Petitioner should not have been arraigned as an accused. According to us, the aforesaid submission cannot be entertained at this stage. No extraneous material can be looked into by this Court while examining challenge in respect of quashing of the First Information Report. Perusal of the first information report prima facie discloses commission of the offence. As pointed by us, the defence of the accused cannot be examined at this stage nor can this Court look into any extraneous material for deciding the probability or otherwise of the defence of the accused. As indicated by us, we have examined the first information report and on perusal of the first information report, prima facie commission of cognisable offence and the involvement of the Petitioner is clearly spelt out. In such circumstances, 3 wp3426.10 therefore, according to us, the challenge of the Petitioner to the first information report with prayer for quashing of the same cannot be entertained by us. 3 Resultantly, there is no merit in this Petition. This Petition is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.N.GILANI, J) (P.V.HARDAS, J)