1 MNM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.488 OF 2009 Sameer Ramakant Khawtekar & Anr. ...Applicants (Original Accused) Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent (Orig.Complainant) Mr.Hemant Vadke, Advocate for the Applicants Mrs. P.P Bhosale, A.P.P for the State CORAM: SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 14TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1.This application challenges the order of the learned Sessions Judge refusing to discharge the applicant from Sessions Case No.33/2009 passed on 10 th July 2009. The charge against both the accused is under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. 2.The incident that transpired is that the injured who owes some monies to the accused No.1 had an altercation. Both the accused had revolver in their hands. The accused are stated to have verbally 2 threatened the complainant as the debt was not returned. The exact words are also set out in the complaint filed by the Driver of the injured. Based upon the threat and use of weapon the complainant jumped and caused certain injuries. Hence, it is contended that the accused cannot be liable for those injuries suffered by his voluntary act. To attract Section 307 the act of the accused with intention and knowledge, would be required to be such as would cause his death. The use of the revolver and the threat caused a scare in the injured person. The verbal threat is ISKO THOK DAALTA HOON . Considering the use of the revolver. This threat is likely to be taken as the act to commit a murder. The accused could have actually done that act since the accused had the weapon with him. However, the consequence of the act has been a fall which the accused themselves have not caused. 3.A reading of the complaint does show a cognisable offence made out. The accused could have charged under various offence of the I.P.C. They have been charged under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. Upon evidence being led the learned Magistrate may acquit the accused or convict them of lesser offence or of the same offence. However, that does not show a case for discharge where no cognisable offence at all is disclosed in the complaint. Hence, the application 3 for discharge is rightly rejected. 4.Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)