1 wp-21-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 21 OF 2011 Mohammed Usman Shaikh ...Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr ...Respondents ...... Ms Seema Gupta i/by A.M. Saraogi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri A.S.Gadkari, A.P.P. for State. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED:- 4th February, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P.for the State. 2. Three separate reliefs are claimed in this petition. The first relief is on the assumption that the F.I.R registered against the petitioner being F.I.R.No.128/2010 for the offence referred to therein is false. The question, whether the allegations in the said F.I.R. are false or otherwise, will be matter for investigation and trial. Unless the criminal action initiated on the basis of the F.I.R.is taken to its logical end, one 2 wp-21-11 way or the other, at this stage, it is not possible to presume that the allegations in the F.I.R.filed against the petitioner are false. To get over this, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the observation made in the order while considering the prayer for bail dated 2.6.2010. Needless to observe that the discussion in the said order is in the context of considering the prayer for bail and cannot be the basis to authoritatively answer the issue in favour of the petitioner at this stage. In view of the above, we hold that the first relief claimed in this petition is premature and cannot be gone into, at this stage. 3. Insofar as the second relief is concerned, it is for quashing of F.I.R. No.128/2010. Once again reliance is placed on the observation made in the order dated 2.6.2010 passed by the lower Court, while considering prayer for bail. It is submitted before us that since the opinion recorded by the Court is that the complaint is false, as no incident had taken place, the F.I.R.be quashed. It is not open for us, at this stage of the proceeding, to take such a view. The question, whether the incident, in fact, took place or otherwise, is a matter of investigation and trial. There can be no presumption of that factual position. This argument cannot be the basis to quash the F.I.R. Accordingly, the relief in terms of prayer clause (b) cannot be countenanced. 4. The third relief is to issue direction to Respondent No. 1 (a) to 3 wp-21-11 provide security to the petitioner. It will be open to the petitioner to make an application to the Appropriate Authority for the said relief, who in turn, will decide the same on its own merits, in accordance with law. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of on the above terms. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)