1 8WP.1618-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1618 OF 2011 Shri Radheshyam s/o. Domajee Sontakke & 2 others ...Petitioners. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another. ..Respondents. .......... Mr.S.P.Munghate, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mrs.Aruna Pai, A.P.P. for the State. .......... CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR AND P. D. KODE, JJ. DATED : 22nd AUGUST, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The Petition is for quashing of FIR. In the first place, the complainant has not been made respondent in the present Petition. Be that as it may, the ground on which the petitioners are praying for quashing of FIR is that the petitioners had never visited the matrimonial house of the complainant. They have been falsely roped in. Besides, no offence is disclosed against them in the FIR. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that in the anticipatory bail application, the petitioners had specifically urged that the complainant had taken away all her belongings and ornaments. PPD 2 8WP.1618-11 After considering the said plea, anticipatory bail was granted by the concerned Court. 3. None of the above arguments commend to us. The fact that the petitioners had never visited the matrimonial house is a matter which will have to be established during the trial. That cannot be a ground for quashing of FIR. Even the argument that the petitioners have been granted anticipatory bail because their contention has been accepted by the concerned Court that the complainant took away all her belongings and ornaments, also cannot be a ground for quashing of FIR. Assuming that the said opinion has been recorded by the concerned Court that is only a tentative view. But, that does not mean that the FIR should be quashed on the basis of such finding in the order granting anticipatory bail. 4. The only contention that needs to be dealt with is whether the FIR discloses any offence committed by the petitioners before us. On perusal of the FIR, we have no manner of doubt that the acts of commission and omission of the petitioners have been referred to in the FIR, more particularly in the third last and penultimate paragraph of the FIR. The said allegation is correct or 3 8WP.1618-11 otherwise is a matter for investigation and if there is material to support the said allegation, that aspect will have to be decided at the trial. 5. Suffice it to observe that no case for quashing of FIR is made out. Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed. 6. We place on record the objection taken by the learned APP that no relief should be granted to the petitioners on account of their conduct inasmuch as after having obtained the anticipatory bail, they have not cooperated with the investigation and more so after the investigation was complete they did not appear before the concerned Court when the chargesheet was to be presented and instead they have rushed to this Court by way of present Petition. It is not necessary to elaborate on this objection in view of the reasons already recorded above. (P. D. KODE, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)