( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3794 OF 2010 Raosaheb Machindra Patil APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another RESPONDENTS .... Mr. S.T. Ghute, advocate for the applicant. Mr. B.J. Sonawane, APP for the respondent/State. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 4th October, 2010] PER COURT : 1. The application is filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking quashing of FIR No. 33/2010, registered with Ambi Police Station (Taluka Bhoom), against the applicant and other accused persons, to the extent of the applicant, chiefly on the ground that the applicant was not present at the spot of incident. It is alleged that he attended the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Paranda on 09-09-2010 and that there was no possibility of his returning to his village Ingonda by about 5 p.m. He has filed copies of affidavit and bond executed by him as surety ( 2 ) in a criminal case filed against one Ganpat alias Bapu Ghanshyam Pakale. In short, he has put forth plea of alibi in support of application for quashing of the FIR. The FIR purports to show that the alleged incident occurred at about 5 p.m. on 9th September, 2010. True, prima facie, the applicant was present in the Court at Paranda on the relevant date. Still, however, it cannot be overlooked that distance between village Ingonda and Paranda is of about 25-30 kms. and the applicant could have travelled back home within about 30-40 minutes. The copy of the affidavit of the applicant does not show any time as such. It cannot be said that he executed the surety bond at the end of the working hours of the Court and was unable to return to village at the relevant time. The plea of alibi cannot be considered as plank for quashing of the FIR at this juncture. No substance in the application and it is rejected. Liberty to approach the Court of Sessions for appropriate relief, as may be permissible under the law. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln3794-10 ( 3 )