1 2818 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2818 OF 2010 Ashoksingh Maharajsingh Yadav ....Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors.Respondents Mr.K.H.Giri for Petitioner Mr.S.A.Shaikh APP for Respondent-State CORAM : N.D.DESHPANDE,J. DATED : January 31, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Giri for Petitioner. The Petitioner filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and invoking the inherent powers of this court under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 for quashing of criminal proceedings on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate,22nd Court,Andheri Mumbai. The Petitioner felt aggrieved when there was an FIR registered against him for offences under section 336 of IPC read with section 5,27 of Arms Act regarding an incident dated 2 2818 2.1.2001 filed by complainant. The said Complainant is not a party to this Petition. Admittedly as per the FIR, he is an aggrieved person on whom the Petitioner had fired two rounds in the air to disperse the complainant and others who had visited his office premises for recovery of the rent of car. Admittedly, there was a dispute about payment of rent of the car and it is alleged that the complainant and five associates not only demanded unreasonable rent amount which was not due and recoverable as per the Petitioner's case but,also manhandled him by beatings with fists,blows and kicks. Then he was constrained to open fire in the air and became successful to save his life. Then he contacted the police and registered his complaint. 2. Admittedly, there is a case registered against the complainant under sections 143,144, 506 IPC. vide FIR No.6/2007 and the police summoned them in the police station. The opposite party also complained against the present Petitioner and registered an FIR No.7/10 under section 336 3 2818 IPC and under section 3,5 and 27 Arms Act and under section 327 IPC against the Petitioner. The police investigated the matter, and found the Petitioner on one side, and six others i.e. who were responsible for the incident and for their involvement in it and therefore filed two separate charge sheets. Thus, two cases emerged which are counter cases, now pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 22nd Court, Andheri Mumbai. 3. Most of the facts are admitted by the Petitioner in this connection. However, he insisted on quashing the FIR No.7/2001 and quashing of the charge sheet filed against him. According to him, he is innocent and acted in self-defence. 4. The defence of the Petitioner cannot be considered in a Petition for quashing a complaint either under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. The defence is to be asserted and required to be proved. This is not a Court which would 4 2818 record evidence for fact finding. Trial Courts are established and meant for recording evidence in proceedings and to decide the charge proved or not on the basis of fact finding. Thus, it is not a fit case where discretionery power of this Court can be used for quashing or declaring the Petitioner as innocent at this stage, which are disputed facts. 5. Therefore, police have chosen to file two separate charge sheets. Thus, Petition is devoid of substance. Hence, stands dismissed at the stage of admission summarily. N.D.DESHPANDE, J