( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 434 OF 2009 Dnyandeo s/o Kundlik Sudrik and others. PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. N.V. Gaware, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Patil, APP for the respondents/State. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 6th August, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The respondent No. 2 instituted a private complaint case against the petitioners which was referred for police investigation under section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioners challenge the proceedings instituted by the respondent No. 2. 3. According to the respondent No.2, the petitioners visited his residential house on 15-12-2008 ( 2 ) in context of settlement of labour contract. They stayed at his house. ON 15-12-2008, somewhere in the early morning between 4.00 to 5 a.m., they committed theft of his tractor and trolley, which were parked in the premises of the thrashing floor. The investigation is under progress. The learned APP points out from the investigation papers that the tractor and the trolley have been recovered from the petitioner No. 3 Tukaram. According to the petitioners, they have been falsely implicated by the respondent No. 2 in the criminal case on account of dispute raised by him about the money in respect of the labour contract. The petitioners have filed certain copies of documents in order to demonstrate that there was agreement to provide labours to the Sugar Factory and advance amount was paid to the respondent No. 2. 4. It is well settled that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed only on the ground that there is some defence put forth and which may be having ring of truth. The quashing of criminal proceedings in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the ( 3 ) Constitution is uncalled for in view of disputed questions of fact and for the reason that the prayer for quashing is based on probable defence of the petitioners. Faced with this difficulty, Mr. Gaware submits that the petition will not be pressed into service to the extent of the petitioner No.3. The private complaint case shows that all the petitioners together had visited house of the respondent No. 2 at the relevant time and, therefore, nexus between the petitioners No. 1 and 2, 4 and 5 on one hand and the petitioner No. 3 on the other hand also is required to be unearthed. Under these circumstances, the petition is dismissed. Still, however, the interim protection granted to the petitioners No. 1 and 2 and 4 and 5 is continued. No coercive action may be taken against them without giving them a notice of one (1) week prior to taking of such action. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/CRIWP434-09 ( 4 )