( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 999 OF 2009 Ram s/o. Laxmanrao Ghodke and ors. .. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Shri A.B. Karande, Advocate for the petitioners. Mrs. B.R. Khekale, A.P.P. for respondent No.1. Shri N.R. Pavale h/f. Shri D.J. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 11.02.2010 P.C. :- 1. Heard Shri A.B. Karande, Advocate for the petitioners, Mrs. B.R. Khekale, A.P.P. for respondent No.1 and Shri N.R. Pavale h/f.Shri D.J. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent No.2. 2. This petition is filed being aggrieved by order of issuance of process passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Georai, in R.C.C. No. 1210 of 2008, thereby issuing ( 2 ) process against the present petitioners and two more accused persons for committing offences punishable under sections 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned advocate for the petitioner has taken me through the record. The copy of the complaint is at Exh. “E” of the petition and there is verification recorded on 12.12.2008. It is case of respondent No.2 Ankush that on 06.11.2008 at about 4.00 to 5.00 p.m. in front of his house the petitioners and other two accused persons came, abused and questioned why he had broken common boundary bund of the land. Respondent No.2 said that he had not broken the bund. At that time original accused Nos. 1 and 2 beat him with sticks. Petitioner No. 2 beat him with bamboo stick on his right thigh. Petitioner No.1 gave him slap and petitioner No.3 instigated others to beat him. Then Mahadeo and Vitthal came and rescued the complainant. According to respondent No.2 he went to Chaklamba Police Station to lodge complaint, but it was treated as N.C. and police advised the complainant to approach the Court. Therefore, complaint was filed. 4. On the face of it the case does not fall under any ( 3 ) of the clauses of para 102 of the case of State of Haryana V/s. Bhajan Lal & Ors., AIR 1992 S.C. 604. At this stage, the certificate produced by petitioners at Exhs. “J” and “K” cannot be considered as same are part of defence evidence of alibi. Such evidence is to be considered at the time of trial. In the circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed in limine. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/FEB10/crwp999.09