The High Court should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash an FIR under Section 482 CrPC once the investigation is complete and a chargesheet is ready; the petitioner's remedy is to file a discharge application before the Trial Court.

JUDGMENT [Per: RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J] :-

1) The Petitioner, by the present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has approached this Court with a prayer that, the FIR bearing No.884/2020 dated 4th December, 2020 filed under sections 341, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered with Dindoshi Police Station, be quashed and set aside.

2) This Court vide its order dated 8th February, 2021 was pleased to issue notice to Respondent. Respondent No.2, though served has not appeared.

3) Heard Mr. Tapan Thattet, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Smt. M. M. Deshmukh, Acting PP with Mr. Vinod Chate, learned APP for the Respondent – State. Perused record.

4) The Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR registered with Dindoshi Police Station, being C.R. No.884/2020 dated 4th December, 2020, under section 341, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Perusal of the FIR indicates that, the same has been filed by Respondent No.2, who also happens to be an Advocate. Perusal of the FIR reveals that, in October, 2020, followers of the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (party) were insisting that, the company Amazon Transportation Pvt. Ltd. should use Marathi language in their day to day activities. That, the Petitioner as an follower of the said party had threatened the said company/its employees. Pursuant to the said threats, the said Company had filed legal proceedings in the City Civil Court at Dindoshi, being Civil Suit No.1119/2020 seeking injunction to restrain the Petitioner and the other followers of party to enter into the Company premises. On behalf of the Company, the said suit was filed by Advocate Sushant Joshi and Advocate Akshay Purkar. That, the City Civil Court at Dindoshi vide order dated 22nd October, 2020 had granted an ex-parte stay and the suit was listed for hearing on 4th December, 2020. That, as Advocate Mr. Sushant Joshi was unwell, Advocate Durgesh R. Gupta i.e. the Respondent No.2/complainant attended the Court proceeding. That, after finishing the Court proceeding at around 1.30 pm, when the Respondent No.2/ complainant was leaving the Court premises, unknown person came near him and asked him his name and whether he was responsible for taking the Order of stay. At that time two other persons came from behind and started assaulting the complainant. That, the said unknown person on seeing that other Advocates assembling at spot, ran away from the said spot. Other lawyers who had assembled at the spot chased them, but could not catch hold of the said unknown persons. The complainant spotted the Petitioner removing his car and when the other lawyers were making inquiry with the Petitioner, one of the unknown person was found there. That, as the Civil Suit was filed and an ex-parte stay order was obtained, the Petitioner along with three unknown persons pursuant to and with a common intention stopped the complainant and assaulted him with kick and fist blows and abused him. In the background of these facts, the FIR was filed. That, subsequent statements cannot be a ground to invoke a cognizable offence, when none has been made out in the FIR. That, the FIR fails to bring out any cognizable offence whatsoever against the Petitioner. In view thereof, the Petitioner submits that, the present FIR be quashed and set aside.

5) Learned Advocate for the Petitioner contended that, there is no role assigned to the Petitioner in the FIR. That, no cognizable offence is made out and that the Petitioner has not participated in the alleged assault. That, the statement recorded during the investig