(1) Criapln603-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 603 OF 2010 Panchakshri Gourishankarappa Mitkari APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. Shrikant G. Kawade, advocate holding for Mr. S.J. Salunke, advocate for the applicant. Mr. B.V. Wagh, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. K.N. Lokhande, advocate for respondent No. 2 ..... CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J. DATED : 13th APRIL, 2011 ORAL ORDER: 1. Heard both the sides. 2. The present applicant is an accused in the crime registered by the police on the basis of F.I.R. filed by one Jalindar Vinayak Pawar, who is respondent No. 2 before us. He had reported about the accident which had occurred on 1st January, 2010 at 9.00 p.m. in the night. According to him, while he, as a pillion rider, was proceeding with his (2) Criapln603-10 cousin - Deepak Kondiram Pawar, in the night by a motorcycle, one travel vehicle bearing No. MH-44/B-546 gave dash to the motorcycle. In the accident, the motorcycle driver, namely, Deepak Pawar died while the complainant has received serious injury to his left hand and forehead. Therefore, the accident was reported on the next day at 4 a.m. In the said F.I.R., besides giving the vehicle number, it was also thereafter clarified by the complainant i.e. respondent No. 2 that since there was dark and since the number-plate could not be seen clearly, the complainant was unable to give the exact registration number and the model of the vehicle. 3. The present applicant comes with a case that in fact, the vehicle bearing registration No. MH-44/B-546 is a Indica V2 i.e. saloon car. He has also filed photocopy of registration certificate to that effect. He further states that the car vehicle was not even roadworthy during the relevant period, and, therefore, he submits that the F.I.R. be quashed. (3) Criapln603-10 4. Learned A.P.P. makes a statement that after filing of the present F.I.R., statements of two eye witnesses have been recorded by the Investigating Officer wherein it is revealed that the said car was involved in that accident. 5. Mr. Kawde, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submits that the very fact that the complainant has reported involvement of a tourist vehicle and the present vehicle is a Indica V2 saloon car would go to show that the statements in the F.I.R. are improbable and, therefore, it requires to be quashed. 6. The circumstances on record, however, clearly show that the complainant has suffered serious injuries to his forehead and left hand and, therefore, the F.I.R. was filed at 4 a.m. while the accident has occurred at 9 p.m. in the same night. Therefore, merely on the basis of certain statement in the F.I.R. that the complainant was not able to give exact registration number and the model of the vehicle, the F.I.R. cannot be quashed. It is an (4) Criapln603-10 admitted fact that the investigation had thereafter been carried by the Investigating Officer and in view of these facts, the present application is dismissed. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] NPJ/criapln603-10