* 1 * FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 96 OF 2009 (SHALIK RAGHO CHOUTHMAL & ORS.V/S.STATE OF MAHARASHRTRA) ___________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, apperances, Court's orders or Court's or Judge's directions and Registrar's orders orders ___________________________________________________________ Mr.Vinod Wagh,adv.for applicants. Mrs.A.A.Mane, APP for respondent/State. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 16TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C. : 1. Heard counsel for both sides. 2. This application is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR vide C.R.No.69 of 2008 lodged with Deonar Police Station, Mumbai on 26th February, 2008 for the offences punishable under Section 42, 324, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 * 2 * IPC. The FIR alleges an incident dated 25th February, 2008. The applicants and the complainant are residents of the same building. Applicant no.1 is the father of applicants no.2 and 3. It is alleged in the complaint that on 25th February, 2008 at about 7.00 p.m. when the complainant was in the lift, son of applicant no.1 was operating the same. He was listening to the music on his mobile. The complainant objected to the loud volume of the music and scolded the boy. Apparently this annoyed the applicants. They allegedly entered into the house of the complainant, dragged him outside and assaulted him. As a consequence of assault, the complainant suffered bleeding injuries. 3. Mr.Wagh, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the facts * 3 * disclosed in the complaint, do not make out the offences punishable under Section 452 and 504 IPC. According to him, the offence punishable under Section 452 IPC will not be complete without establishing the intention of committing assault or putting person in fear of hurt etc. As regards the offence punishable under Section 504 also, he submits that the intention to insult with intent to provoke breach of peace is essential. It is also contended that applicant no.2 on the date and time of the alleged incident was not in Bombay. He had gone to Jalna to attend an wedding. 4. Perusal of the complaint shows that on reading of the same, on a prima-facie view, the offences as alleged have been made out. As regards the intention to commit the offences, the same is the matter of * 4 * evidence at trial. The second contention of applicant no.2 is of an alibi. This contention will have to be taken by him as a defence at the time of trial. Hence, the application is rejected. [JUDGE]