1 10 wp.2708.09 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2708 OF 2009 Pankaj Sureshchandra Gupta and anr. ... Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ... Respondents ----- Mr. S.A.Mudbidri for the Petitioners. Mr. H.S.Venegavkar for Respondent No.2 and 3. Mr. D.P.Adsule, APP for the State. ----- CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR and P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : 06 th October, 2010. P.C. 1 By this petition, it is prayed that the FIR registered against the Petitioners dated 5 th June, 2008 at the Narpoli Police Station, Bhiwandi, district Thane for the offence punishable under Sections 339, 380, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code be quashed and set aside. The principal argument is that the Petitioner No.2 is not concerned with the offence. At the relevant time, she was in Singapore, which fact is evidenced from the endorsement in the passport. She had travelled to Singapore on 18 th April, 2008 and left from that place only on 6 th May, 2008. Whereas, the offence in question is stated to have been committed on 5 th May, 2008 at 09:00 am. It is unfathomable that a person, who is not in the city much less in the country can be roped in, in 2 10 wp.2708.09 connection with the alleged offence, which took place on 5 th May, 2008 at 09:00 am. Insofar as this grievance of the Petitioner No.2 is concerned, the same deserves acceptance. 2 Adverting to the above error, which has crept in, in the FIR, it is argued that no action should be proceeded even against Petitioner No. 1. For, he has also been falsely implicated. Besides, now it transpires that the police has already filed report before the concerned Court stating that no offence is made out. On the basis of investigation done, it transpires that no offence is made out against the Petitioner No.1. In the first place, the fact that Petitioner No.2 has been falsely named in the FIR that does not necessarily enure in favour of Petitioner No.1. The Petitioner No.1 will have to demonstrate that the FIR deserves to be quashed because of independent grounds available to the Petitioner No. 1. The fact that the police have now filed report before the concerned Court on 04 th October, 2008 to the effect that Petitioner No.1 has been falsely implicated, that is a matter to be considered by that Court. We do not express any opinion on the correctness of the said stand taken by the Investigating Officer in the stated report. We do not intend to examine the argument canvassed before us that the report filed by the Investigating Officer is inaccurate and misleading with regard to Petitioner No.1. 3 In the present petition therefore, we partly allow this petition 3 10 wp.2708.09 only in favour of Petitioner No.2. Accordingly we order that the FIR in question is quashed and set aside insofar as against the Petitioner No.2 only. With regard to Petitioner No.1, the matter will proceed before the concerned Court on its own merits in accordance with law. All questions are kept open. Petition disposed of on the above terms. [ P.D. KODE, J ] [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ]