(1) CRI.APPLN. 1351.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1351 OF 2010 Dilip Krushnaji Padalkar APPLICANT VERSUS State of Maharashtra and anr. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.M. Godsay, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. B.V. Wagh, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State. None present for respondent no.2 though served. ..... CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J. DATED : 13TH APRIL, 2011 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Heard. Respondent no.2 is absent though served. It is an admitted fact that there are cross- complaints between the present applicant and respondent no.2. While the complaint is filed by the present applicant on 2.4.2009, the complaint filed by respondent no.2 is dated 3.4.2009. The dispute relates to the entering in the cabin of the applicant, who is the Superintending Engineer of the Electricity Distribution Company, by the respondent no.2-M.L.A. and his associates and as to what (2) CRI.APPLN. 1351.2010 occurred when respondent no.2 and his associates went to the chamber of the applicant. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the complaint filed by respondent no.2 is belated. In the complaint, it was alleged that colleague of the present applicant had forcibly restrained the respondent no.2 and his 4-5 associates, by locking them in the chamber, which according to learned counsel, is improbable. 3. Perused the record. Though the complaint of respondent no.2 is to the effect that the applicant and his colleague has carried the activity, the statement of associates of respondent no.2 shows that there were many colleagues. In the circumstances, it would be a matter of merit, to be decided by the learned trial Court, upon recording of the evidence. At this stage, the chargesheet cannot be quashed. Hence, the Criminal Application is dismissed. Sd/- [M.T. JOSHI, J.] arp