1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1933/2009. Ganesh s/o Sitaram Agrawal - APPLICANT VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra and Ors.- RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.RR Mantri, Advocate for Applicant; Mr.DR Korde,APP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2; Mr.RS Shinde, Adv. h/for Mr.DS Bagul, Adv. for Respondent no.3. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 29th September, 2009. PER COURT : 1) Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of learned Counsel for the parties the matter is finally heard extensively at the stage of admission. 2) The applicant - Ganesh holds immovable property, which is allegedly occupied by original complainant. The parties are facing civil litigation. It is alleged by the complainant that in order to evacuate and forcibly evict him beyond the property, the applicant Ganesh has hired the hirers on contract basis. Two persons, who were subsequently identified as Mazhar Younus 2 Shaikh and Nabi Rasool Shaikh were nabbed by police and incriminating articles were recovered from them. In the second incident, it was one Hemant Madan Sharma, who was also instrumental in approaching the complainant. He claimed to be hired those two persons - Mazhar Shaikh and Nabi Shaikh for contract of Rs.70,000/- to eliminate the complainant. 3) The Counsel for applicant - Ganesh invited my attention to the order of the brother Judge dated 29th May, 2009 passed in Criminal Application No.1635/2003, paragraph 2 thereof reads as under : " 2.Even accepting every line and sentence contained in F.I.R. to have value of evidence, ingredients of offence punishable under Section 115, 118 and 120-B of IPC are not even described. The applicant has therefore made out a case for grant of relief sought for." 4) The Counsel submits that there is a positive observation of this Court that there is nothing in the F.I.R. and no ingredients of the offence under Section 115, 118 and 120-B of IPC, being accelerated, the F.I.R. should be quashed. 5) There cannot be quarrel on the order and the observations made by the brother Judge, but 3 one cannot be oblivious that those observations were made at primary stage while dealing with the application for anticipatory bail as sought by the applicant/accused – Ganesh. The parameters about the gravity as referred in the grant of pre-arrest bail and as referred for seeking quashment of F.I.R. in terms of section 482 of Cr.P.C., should not be equated. They are on two different pedestal and need appreciation in other directions. 6) The order of this Court has virtually creepled the investigation. In a matter of such avenues it is remotely possible to have a direct evidence. The circumstances and chain will lead to infer concert between the present applicant/accused with the hirers or the persons, who barged at the shop of the complainant to insist him to succumb to their demand of vacating the premises or joining them to the mentors, else to face consequence. 7) The Counsel for the original complainant placed reliance to the judgment of the Apex court in the matter of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Vangaveeti Nagaiah - 2009 ALL MR (Cri.) 2466 (S.C.), wherein the Apex court has again dealt with the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and observed that, there should not a short cut mechanism provided by the Courts to the accused to get rid of the prosecution. 4 8) I quite see that the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not provide a meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint or the F.I.R. has to be read as a whole and now the learned APP has informed that there is a statement of the accused. How far that statement will be available to be coined is altogether different situation. The fact remains that the hirers were prima facie engaged by the applicant -Ganesh to do away the said complainant. It cannot be said that no case is made out against the applicant/accused seeking quashment within the bracket of Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the situation, I do not see any merit in the application. Criminal Application rejected. Rule discharged. 9) The observations are prima facie in nature. Needless to add, the remedies, seeking discharge, are always open to the applicant/accused. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/cran1933.09