( 1 ) THE petitioner herein has been arrayed as an accused in the charge-sheet which was filed by the Police in the Court of Judicial magistrate, First Class, Bhandara, on which R. C. C. No. 302/02 has been registered and process is issued against the petitioner along with other accused persons under sections 420, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he is falsely involved by his wife whose maiden name is Miss. Panchsheela Shyamrao Dongre. According to the petitioner, he has been involved in the offence only on account of incriminating statement given by said Panchsheela wherein she claimed to be innocence and said that the said forged mark-list showing that she had passed the D. Ed. Examination with Seat No. 294 in the year 1982 was made available to her by the petitioner, based upon which she has secured the employment. According to petitioner, statement by Panchsheela that she had filed a case under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code and whenever the petitioner/ accused used to meet her in relation to the said case, he used to threatened her on the basis of the issue relating to the false mark-list, which he claimed he had given to her, on the basis of which she had secured the job and was serving, was false, and made in order to involve him in the crime falsely. ( 3 ) IN the present petition for quashing of proceedings, the petitioner claims and contends that it is solely on the basis of said incriminating statement of the original accused, he has been involved in the case. There are no imputations whatsoever in the F. I. R. , similarly in his house search conducted by the police after the statement of the original accused Panchsheela, nothing incriminating was discovered from his house. On these grounds he claims for quashing of the proceedings in exercise of this Courts jurisdiction under section 482 of Criminal procedure Code ( 4 ) THE petition has been opposed by the State. The State has in the affidavit which is sworn by Murlidhar Kharche, Police Sub Inspector, contended that with the help of co-accused Shri Kale, the petitioner herein had forged and fabricated the mark-list. According to police, there was sufficient evidence to involve the accused/petitioner in the case. The State has in the affidavit which is sworn by Murlidhar Kharche, Police Sub Inspector, contended that with the help of co-accused Shri Kale, the petitioner herein had forged and fabricated the mark-list. According to police, there was sufficient evidence to involve the accused/petitioner in the case. Police has also relied upon the statement of accused Panchsheela through which the petitioner was shown to have been directly involved in the case. The prosecution ultimately prayed for dismissal of the case. ( 5 ) AFTER perusal of record and analysis of submissions by rival parties, it is seen that the petitioner is pressing in service for his claim for quashing the plea that;"he is involved in the case, further that he has been falsely implicated by his wife who is separated and litigating with him, due to acrimony she has as well as that there was no evidence as such, so also that the fact that nothing was found in his house during house search. "it is seen that what the petitioner is contending is that he is setting up a defence. The stage of setting up defence is at the trial. However, good the defence the accused may have, it is useful only in the trial and not for quashing the complaint/fir or charge-sheet. Possibility of availability of any best piece of defence and possibility of acquittal cannot constitute a ground for quashing the proceedings. ( 6 ) RELIANCE of the learned advocate for the petitioner on the reported judgment in case of S. N. Palanitkar and ors. vs. State of Bihar and anr, AIR 2001 SC 2960 does not help the petitioner, since in the case on hand before the supreme Court, on facts of the case, the Lordships of the Supreme Court had found in Paragraph 27, that,"27. No offence was made out against all accused except accused no. 7 therein, as the ingredients of offence alleged against them were not satisfied, and that at the time of consideration of issue of process, the magistrate has failed to exercise jurisdiction in terms of section 200 to 203 of Criminal Procedure Code. No offence was made out against all accused except accused no. 7 therein, as the ingredients of offence alleged against them were not satisfied, and that at the time of consideration of issue of process, the magistrate has failed to exercise jurisdiction in terms of section 200 to 203 of Criminal Procedure Code. "in the background of the case in which petitioner is involved, this reported judgment does not cope up to rescue the petitioner from the trial and for enabling this Court to exercise jurisdiction under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code ( 7 ) IN the result, this Court has come to the conclusion that petition does not merit any interference. Rule is liable to be discharged and is accordingly discharged. Petition dismissed.