..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1843 OF 2008 Vijaykumar Ramchandra Prabhu. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .... Mr.Vinit Jain, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs.A.A.Mane, APP, for State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 1st October, 2008. DATED : 1st October, 2008. DATED : 1st October, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner-orig.accused and the learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No.316 of 2007 of Vile Parle police station, Mumbai. The said case is under Section 509 of IPC. The complainant is a lady. In the complaint, she has stated that from time to time the petitioner used words and gestures which insulted her modesty. She has stated that the petitioner has also called on her telephone and uttered words which insulted her modesty. She has also stated that on 27.7.2007 at about 6:30 p.m. when she went to Madhusadan Society, Vile Parle, Mumbai at that time the petitioner ..(2).. uttered words which insulted her modesty so also accused did some gestures which insulted her modesty. 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that on 27.7.2007 the petitioner was not present at Madhusadan Society but he was present at VT in the office of the Municipal Corporation. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on the entry pass dated 27.7.2007 of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai wherein the time is 5.00 p.m.. Even assuming that the petitioner was present in the office of the Municipal Corporation at VT at 5.00 p.m., from VT to reach Vile Parle it would not take more than a hour. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner could not have been present at Madhusadan Society, Vile Parle at 6.00 p.m. on 27.7.2007. In any event, this being the defence of the petitioner it would be open to him to prove the same during the trial by leading proper evidence. 4. Looking to the FIR and the other material on record, I find that there is sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner. Hence, no case is made out for discharge. Criminal Writ Petition is rejected. ..(3).. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)