- 1 - Criminal Application No.5017/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5017 OF 2010 Babasaheb s/o Manohar Chavan & ors. ... APPLICANTS VERSUS Gyandeo s/o Arun Chavan & anr. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri S.S. Choudhari, Advocate for applicants Shri S.J. Salunke, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for respondent No.2. ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 21st February, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard. Quashment of proceedings in R.C.C. No. 122/2009 moved before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pathri and issuance of process dated 11.2.2010 for an offence under sections 323, 324, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is sought. 2. Shri Choudhari, learned counsel for the applicants, while criticising the complaint, has taken recourse to earlier complaint lodged by the complainant/ respondent to the police officer and also about the accident of autorickshaw in which the complainant lost his mother. Counsel submits, when the incident has taken place on 25.10.2009, the belated complaint dated - 2 - Criminal Application No.5017/2010 17.12.2009 speaks for itself and warrants for quashment. 3. The learned counsel for the complainant invited my attention to the report to the police authorities recorded immediately on 26.10.2009 in which he has narrated the events. Curiously, the police authorities verified the same and found substance in the report barring the suspicion erupted in the mind of the complainant that the accident of autorickshaw in which Ashrubai lost life was at the behest of Babasaheb Manohar Chavan or Sunil Babasaheb Chavan, as it was found to be untrue. Police authorities sought permission to prosecute both the groups in terms of Section 101 of the Criminal Procedure Code and also seeking a bond in terms of Section 116(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is curious, the police authorities did not dispute about the events having taken place on Rampuri (Kh.), dated 25.10.2009 (subject of complaint). 4. Naming 7 independent persons in the complaint and not disclosing the same will not be fatal to the legality or genuineness or worth of the complaint. 5. Learned counsel for the original complainant invited my attention to the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa konjalgi and others (1976 (3) SCC 736), in which the Hon’ble Lordships, have held that the order - 3 - Criminal Application No.5017/2010 issuing process can be quashed and set aside on following four grounds: (i) Where the allegations made in the complaint or the statement of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused. (ii) Where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (iii) Where the discretion exercised by the magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and (iv) Where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as want of sanction, or absence of complaint by legally competent authority and the like.” 6. Analysing the factual matrix of the complaint and the verification carried out by the learned Judge, it is explicit, none of the four grounds exist in favour of the present petitioner to quash the proceedings. Prima facie details illustrate of the incident as claimed by complainant. Petition lacks merits, dismissed. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE