1 Cri.Appln.No.1664/06 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1664/2006 1) Ashok Bhiva Pawar, Age: 45 Yrs., occu. Service (HHC 1276), R/o Building No.8, Room No.7, Police Qtrs. Jalgaon, Dist.Jalgaon. 2) Narendra Jijabrao Pawar, Age: 41 Yrs., occu. Service (PCNo.2325), R/o Centre No.9/3, Police Housing Society, Shahunagar, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon. 3) Rajendra Pandurang Gaikwad, Age: 41 Yrs., occu. Service (PHC No.2156) R/o 3/8, Dakshatanagar, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon. 4) Naresh Nathu Sapkale Age: 43 Yrs., occu. Service (PC No.732), r/o 11/1B, Dandekarnagar, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon. 5) Sandip Deoram Patil, Age: 32 Yrs., occu. Service (PC No.2636) R/o Plot No.22, Dadawadi, NH No.6, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon. 6) Ashok Bhajana Sanagat Age: 38 yrs., occu.Service (PC No.434), R/o police Qtrs., Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon. 7) Abhiman Mahadu Patil Age: 38 Yrs., occu. Service 2 Cri.Appln.No.1664/06 (PC No.2523), R/o Police Quarters, Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon. 8) Jakir Sayyad Hasan, Age: 36 Yrs., occu. Service, (PC No. 838) Room No.1, Police Head Quarter No.1, Jilhapeth Jalgaon, District Jalgaon. 9) Hiralal Narayan Patil Age: 34 Yrs., occu. Service (PC No. 1438), R/o 8, Police Quarters, Bhadgaon, District Jalgaon. 10) Bhaskar s/o Namdeo Chavan Age: 33 Yrs., occu. Service, (PC No.) r/o 13, Adarsh Nagar, (Amalner police Station) Jalgaon, District Jalgaon. = APPLICANTS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra Through the Directorate of Prosecution, Home Deptt., Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2) Shravan s/o Buddha Ahire Age: 456, occ. Labour, R/o Shivajinagar, Lakud Peth, Jalgaon, Tq. And Dist.Jalgaon = RESPONDENTS *** Mr.SM Godsay, Advocate for Applicants; Mr.NB Patil, APP for State; Mr.Deepak K.Rajput, Adv. h/for Mr. BR Waramaa, Adv. For Respondent No.2. WITH 3 Cri.Appln.No.1664/06 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2131 OF 2006 1) Prabhakar Sudhakar Jadhav Age: 40 Yrs., occu. Agril. R/o Ranjangaon Shivar, Ranjangaon, Tq.Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon. 2) Gulab Vitthal Patait, Age: 38 Yrs., occu. Service, R/o Athrva Apartment, Vaibhav Naar, Golibar Tekdi Road, Dhule, Tq.Dhule, District Dhule. 3) Eknath Nimba Pagar, Age: 35 Yrs., occu. Labour, Patilwada, Chalisgaon, Tq.Chalisgaon, Dist.Jalgaon. 4) Virsingh Bhopasingh Pardeshi, Age: 30 Yrs., occu. Labour & Driver, R/o Narayan Master, Chal, Chittod Road, Dhule, Tq. And Dist.Dhule.= APPLICANTS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra Through the Directorate of Prosecution, Home Deptt., Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2) Shravan s/o Buddha Ahire Age: Major, occ. Labour, R/o Shivajinagar, Lakud Peth, Jalgaon, Tq. And Dist.Jalgaon = RESPONDENTS (Resp.No.2 orig. complainant) *** Mr.RS Shinde, Advocate for applicants Mr.NB Patil, APP for State; 4 Cri.Appln.No.1664/06 Mr.Deepak K.Rajput, Adv. h/for Mr. BR Waramaa, Adv. For Respondent No.2. ----- CORAM : A.H.JOSHI & A.R.JOSHI,JJ. DATE : 18th October, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER :A.H.JOSHI,J.) 1) By these Criminal Applications, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants have prayed for quashing the FIR. 2) The grounds raised in the Criminal Applications are that :- (i) The FIR contains the statements which are untrue. (ii) That the description does not constitute commission of offence. (iii) The story narrated therein is improbable. (iv) The complainant is a history-sheeter etc. 3) Perused the FIR. It reveals that the contents of FIR are adequate enough to lead to registration of the offence. 4) The grounds on which the FIR is sought to be quashed are in the nature of defence. 5 Cri.Appln.No.1664/06 5) At this stage, it would be impossible to conclude that the defence put forth by the applicants in their Criminal Applications are true and strong grounds to quash the proceedings. 6) It would be open to the accused persons/applicants to put-forth whatever is their plea in the process of investigation before the investigating officer. 7) Ultimately, in the event charge sheet is filed, it would be open to the applicants to contest the charge in accordance with law. Ultimately, if they are required to put up their defence, they are free to do so. 8) Staying of investigation would not lead to any advancement of justice. 9) We, therefore, discharge the Rule. Interim stay is vacated. Sd/- sd/- (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.H.JOSHI,J.) bdv/