1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3169 OF 2010 Deepak S/o Bhanudas Khotkar and others ..APPLICANTS -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and another ..RESPONDENTS ......... Mr. A.A. Mukhedkar, advocate for applicants. Mr. B.J. Sonawane, A.P.P. for respondent no.1/State. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 20 th October, 2010. PER COURT : 1. The application is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Heard learned Advocate for the applicants and learned A.P.P.. The applicants seeking quashing of the F.I.R. registered at Gondi Police Station against them vide C.R. No.133/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The respondent no.2 seems to have filed F.I.R. alleging that on 23rd June, 2010 at about 10 a.m. the applicants entered her house and took away the domestic articles, cash amount and ornaments from her house. She alleged that they had 2 decamped with such articles and cash amount etc in a tempo vehicle. The complainant alleged that her husband was cultivating the agricultural land of Bhanudas Khotkar as Bataidar (sharer of annual crops). She alleged that she used to reside in farm house with her husband and other members of the family. The F.I.R. purports to show that her husband and the land owners were not pulling on well and land owner was asking her to vacate the house and to go away. However, she and her husband were not ready to vacate the house and wanted to cultivate the land. 4. Having heard the learned Advocate for the applicants and on perusal of the F.I.R., it prima facie appears that when the complainant and her husband declined to vacate the house, and as a result of continuation of cultivation of the land in question, at the hands of the tenant or Bataidar, alleged incident of taking away the domestic articles etc had occurred. 5. The learned Advocate for the applicants would submit that the husband of the complainant is involved in various offences and false complaint is lodged at his behest. He would submit that the applicants are likely to be harassed if the F.I.R. is not quashed. 6. The grounds stated in the application can not be taken 3 into account at this juncture without collection of evidence and without trial, it is not possible to immediately infer that the F.I.R. lodged by the respondent no.2 is false and concocted. If there is no material gathered during the course of investigation then the applicants may be released by the Investigating Officer under Section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code. At this premature stage, it is difficult to say that the F.I.R. is false and liable to be quashed. The application is based on probable defences of the applicants. The fact situation is yet to be determined after due investigation. It is equally probable that due to the dispute between the landlord and the tenant about the termination of the tenancy, and because the landlord desires the tenant to vacate the farm house, the domestic articles were taken away as alleged. Either of the probability is not sufficient to be explored as a ground for quashing of F.I.R. Needless to say, the applicants are not entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 7. In the result, the application is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/cri3169.10