1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 205 OF 2009 Rajesh Ramsukh Rai. .... Petitioner. Versus Commisioner of Police for Gr.Bombay & Ors. .... Respondents. Ms. M. A.Ingale for the Petitioner. Mr. P. S. Hingorani, APP for the Respondent – State. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and A. R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 16TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C.: The report has been filed on 11th October, 2008. Cognizance has been taken and this petition has been filed seeking quashing of the FIR. The relevant portion of the FIR is quoted below: “Today, on 11.10.2008, at 9.30 a.m. in the morning, I as usual parked my Motor Car at the southern entrance of Bhakti Complex and near the road in the Garden at the rear of the same, and went ot the Gymnasium. After completing the works in the Gymnasium, I at about 10.30 hrs. when going towards my vehicle from the road opposite the southern Gate of Bhakti Complex, immediately my elder brother Rajesh Rai came from the rear with a iron bar in his hand and without any reason he heavily hit me in the middle of my right leg and when I asked my brother why he is hitting me without any reason, one unkown person of 35 years of age who was with him has hit me on my face with his fist an due to 2 this my upper front left side tooth is broken. Thereafter, my brother Rajesh and the unkown person with him went away in a Silver colour Skoda Motor car No. 1112 (rest not known) towards the South on Link Road.” Prima facie, it discloses cognizable offence. Hence we do not find any ground to intervene. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution is malafide and for that we should look into the evidence produced. That is exactly the job of the Investigating Officer. Since the report discloses commission of a cognizable offence, we do not find any reason to quash the FIR at this stage. 3. Therefore, the writ petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (BILAL NAZKI, J.) Sd/- (A. R. JOSHI, J.)