1 1354.11 SQP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1354 OF 2011 Ramesh Vishnu Shewale ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Rajendra Megh for Petitioner. Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr.P.G.Sawant for Respondent No.2. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND P.D.KODE, JJ. DATED:- SEPTEMBER 26, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. This Petition is for quashing of F.I.R. registered at Dadar Police Station dated 3rd January, 2011 being C.R.No.3 of 2011 for offences under Sections 324, 504 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The first contention that needs to be addressed is: whether the F.I.R. as registered discloses commission of cognizable offence by the petitioner at all. On perusal of the F.I.R., it is amply clear that the involvement of the 2 1354.11 petitioner in the alleged offence is clearly spelt out. The petitioner’s mother has alleged that on the basis of usual family disputes, she had heated exchange of word with petitioner, who later on hit her with stick on her left shoulder and hand, resulting in injury with swelling, for which, she had to be treated at K.E.M. Hospital. Whether this allegation is true or false, is a matter of investigation. 4. The Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that looking at the chequered litigation between the parties as the petitioner’s mother had filed complaint before the Magistrate for order under Section 19(a)(b) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and the subsequent complaint filed by the petitioner’s wife against his mother on which the Magistrate passed order on 3rd December, 2009 on the same day, would reveal that the petitioner's mother and petitioner’s brothers who are being favoured by her mother, are out to see that the petitioner is dislodged from the premises occupied by him. In other words, the F.I.R. is filed with malafide intention. It is not possible to countenance this submission. 5. In the first place, going by the allegations made in the F.I.R., as aforesaid, clear case is spelt out that the petitioner assaulted his mother with 3 1354.11 a stick on left shoulder and hand. Further, during the investigation, the medical report has been obtained from K.E.M. Hospital which supports that allegation as is stated across the bar by the learned A.P.P. It is possible that there is continual dispute between the petitioner on the one hand and his other family members and mother on the other hand with regard to some property which is in the nature of property dispute. But that, by itself, does not mean that the incident in question referred to the in the F.I.R. did not occur at all. As aforesaid, these are matters which will have to be investigated and eventually adjudicated in the trial between the parties. Suffice it to observe that no case for quashing of F.I.R. has been made out. Hence dismissed. 6. We make it clear that all proceedings between the private parties will have to be decided on its own merits uninfluenced by the observations made in this order, which is only for the limited purpose of considering whether case of quashing of F.I.R. has been made out. (P.D.KODE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)