(1) CRI.APP. 3502.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3502 OF 2010 1. Namita W/o Ramdaras alias Ramdarksh Gaoud 2. Ramdaras Ramdarksh S/o Nohera Gaound .. Applicants VERSUS The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ... Mr. A.P. Avhad, Advocate for the Applicants Mr. V.D. Godbharle, APP for the respondent-State ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 7TH OCTOBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. The Application is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR registered at Shrirampur Police Station vide crime no. 220 of 2010 for offences under section 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The FIR purports to show that the Police had received secret information to the effect that two vehicles, of Wagon-R brand and Maruti Omni brand were being used for transportation of criminals. The (2) CRI.APP. 3502.2010 Police party members therefore read out the information. The two vehicles were intercepted. There were five persons in Maruti Omni vehicle MH-19 -AE-8352 and there were five persons in another Wagon-R vehicle. The applicants were travelling in the Wagon-R vehicle. The Police noticed that there was iron tommy, chili powder kept in cloth bag, a torch light, two wooden stumps, nylon string etc. They were also found in possession of mobile phones and certain cash amount. The FIR was lodged after seizure of the vehicles. The prosecution alleges that the applicants alongwith other inmates of the vehicle were members of a gang of dacoits and had made preparation to commit the offence of dacoity or robbery. 3. The learned Advocate for the applicants submits that no chargesheet is yet filed. The applicants are released on bail. The investigation is in progress. The learned Advocate for the applicants seeks to rely on certain observations in "Chaturi Yadav and ors. V. State of Bihar (AIR 1979 SC 1412)". The observations in the given case are (3) CRI.APP. 3502.2010 not useful in the context of the present matter because those observations have been made while deciding Appeal against order of conviction and sentence. Needless to say the trial for the offence was over and, therefore, the Apex Court held that the mere fact that the persons were found at 1 am. did not by itself prove that they had assembled for making preparations to accomplish that object. 4. In the present case, the evidence regarding intention of the applicants and other persons caught with them, while travelling in the vehicles, is yet to be made clear. The Application is premature in view of the fact that the investigation is incomplete. Hence, it is dismissed. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp