( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 636 OF 2009 Uday Bhagwat Patil PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and another. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. Amol S. Sawant, advocate for the petitioner. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 10th August, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The complaint was lodged by mother of the deceased alleging that the petitioner visited her house in the night of 5th June, 2009, kicked the entrance door of the house and started abusing her son by name Mayur. Allegedly, the petitioner threatened that he will not allow Mayur to remain alive. The petitioner broke open the door of the house and barged in the house and thereafter assaulted said Mayur by means of kicks and ( 2 ) fists. He allegedly attempted to throttle the complainant and told that he will kill said Mayur. Thereafter, Mayur fled away from the backside door and the petitioner followed him. Since then, he was missing from the house. On 8th June, 2009, his dead-body was found in a well situated in the land of one Kadu Kisan Patil. It is alleged that deceased Mayur had entered the house of Smt. Rekhabai Gopal Patil in the morning of 3rd June, 2009 and, therefore, she had complained his misconduct. 3. Mr. Sawant submits that the Entry No. 8 of 2009 in the missing register shows that one Murlidhar Patil gave report about missing of deceased Mayur and reportedly, he had left the residential house without informing anyone. He would submit that delay in lodging of the F.I.R. and absence of any suspicion in the missing report filed by Murlidhar are sufficient grounds to infer that the complaint lodged by mother of the deceased is afterthought. I do not think that on such premises, the F.I.R. can be quashed in the exercise of writ jurisdiction, which is rather a supervisory ( 3 ) jurisdiction under Article 227. Mere delay in lodging of the F.I.R. or omission in the missing report lodged by one Murlidhar are not the sufficient grounds to brand the F.I.R. as concocted or absolutely meritless. The investigation cannot be scuttled at premature stage. Hence, the petition is dismissed in limine. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/CRIWP636-09