1 wp-69-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 69 OF 2011 Yusuf Valimohammed Sajida & others ...Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors ...Respondents. ...... Mr Chaitanya Pendse, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr K.V. Saste, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED:- 28th February, 2011. P.C. 1. By this petition, it is prayed that the F.I.R. registered against the petitioner bearing C.R.No. 351 of 2010, for the offence punishable under Section 324, read with Section 34, of the Indian Penal Code, be quashed. 2. The argument is two fold. In the first place, it is argued that the document at page No. 79 Exh.I would indicate that no external injuries were found on the complainant. If so, the question of applying Section 324 of I.P.C. does not arise. The argument though attractive at the first blush, on deeper enquiry, it is noticed that Exh.I is issued after examination of the complainant and x-ray reports were made available. 2 wp-69-11 The crucial document is the OPD paper at Exh.H, page Nos.77 and 78 of the paper book, it clearly refers to three injuries, which were tenderness, swelling with partial, on head, chest and abdomen respectively. For that reason, CT scan and x-ray was recommended. The report at Exh.I is the outcome of the said x-ray examination. In other words, it is not a case, as if, no injury was noticed on the complainant at the relevant time. Suffice it to observe that this argument does not take the matter any further much less for consideration of relief to quash F.I.R. 3. It was then argued that, in the first place, the description of weapon is shown in the OPD papers is stone and fist blows. Whereas, in the F.I.R.it is shown as bamboo. The fact that there is discrepancy in the description of the weapon, used during the offence, in the two documents cannot be the basis to quash the F.I.R. That is a matter for investigation and trial. As no other argument is canvassed before us, petition should fail. The same is, therefore, dismissed. 4. The original medical record submitted before this Court is returned to the learned A.P.P. for being handed over to the concerned Hospital. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)