1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.766 OF 2009. Pandit S/o Gulabrao Kharade and another ... Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and another ... Respondents. ... Mr.N.V.Gaware, advocate for the petitioners. Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 28.08.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners challenged FIR lodged by the Respondent No.2 on the basis of which Crime No.I-301/2009, is registered for offence 2 U/ss 143, 149, 436, 427 of the I.P.C. and U/ss 3(1) (xv), 3(2) (iii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. There took place theft and robbery in the early hours of 27.7.2009 at residential house of Sindhubai Kharade. The Respondent No.2 lodged compliant to the effect that her brother and herself were suspected to be the thieves and, therefore, in the night of 2.8.2009, her residential Chappar was set to fire. She noticed that the Chappers of her father and brother were also set ablaze and there were 40/50 persons running. She identified four (4) of them. 3. The learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that the complaint lodged by the Respondent No.2 is counter blast to the earlier complaint filed by Sindhubai. He would submit that the petitioners are being falsely involved by the Respondent No.2 and, therefore, her complaint deserves to be quashed. He points out that she allegedly saw 40/50 persons running from near the place but that can not be regarded as proper material to infer the 3 complicity. 4. The recitals of the FIR lodged by the Respondent No.2 would show that she alleged that the sheds (chappers) were set to fire by the members of the crowd amongst whom the petitioners were the persons. It prima facie appears that the household articles lying in the sheds of the Respondent No.2, her father and brother were damaged or at least due to the fire. The matter is under investigation. At present it can not be said that the Criminal complaint is absolutely false. For, nobody is likely to set ablaze his own house in order to make false accusation against another person. In any case at such premature stage, it is difficult to draw inference that the FIR is out-come of any personal vendetta against the petitioners. In this view of the matter, the petition is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crwp76609