( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 251 OF 2009 Rajendra s/o Jyotiram Mule PETITIONER VERSUS Anandrao s/o Ganpati Mule & others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. Vivek Ingle, advocate for the petitioner. Smt. S.S. Jadhav, advocate for respondents No. 1 to 6. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 6th August, 2009] PER COURT : 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns judgement and order rendered by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latur, whereby criminal revision application No. 92/2008 preferred by the respondents No. 1 to 6 was partly allowed and order rendered by the learned Magistrate to issue process against them was set aside to the extent of respondents No. 4 to 6. ( 2 ) 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner instituted a private complaint case (R.C.C. No. 93/2008 against the respondents for offences punishable under section 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the I.P. Code. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after verification of the complaint, directed issuance of process vide order dated 19-08-2008. The respondents challenged the order of issuance of process by filing criminal revision application No. 92/2008. They submitted that the learned Magistrate wrongly evaluated the police report filed under section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They further submitted that they have been framed in the private complaint case with a view to pressurize them regarding possession of land in dispute. They pointed out that a civil dispute was pending vide R.C.S. No. 155/2004 in respect of the land in question. The learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge partly allowed the revision application and was pleased to set aside the order of issuance of process to the extent of the ( 3 ) respondents No. 4 to 6 on the ground that they are women and they could not have been in the agricultural land at the relevant time. 4. The impugned judgement rendered by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge reveals that the process was recalled against the respondents No. 4 to 6 simple because they are women folks and the learned Sessions Judge acted on surmises that generally, the women are not concerned with the agricultural affairs while the male members manage the same. It is observed by the learned Sessions Judge as follows : “According to me involvement of lady accused is not clear even though the statements of witnesses Uttam & Pappu are considered. Generally it is seen that women are not habitual to visit field and agri. affairs are all the while being managed by male members of family. It is often noticed that such cases are often outcome of strained relations and therefore, lady accused are always roped in despite their involvement is doubtful. I the present case, I suspect the same thing.” ( 4 ) 5. The above mentioned observations of the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge would indicate as to how he acted merely on basis of conjectures and suspicion entertained by him. The Courts are not to be guided by hunches and should not be obsessed with any suspicion as such. I find it difficult to countenance the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge and particularly, the observation that the women are not habitual to visit the field and agricultural affairs are not being looked after by them. This is something strange. There is absolutely no basis for such observations. The learned counsel for the respondents would, however, submit that the impugned judgement is perhaps not delivered on merits as such. For, there is a stray observation that involvement of the lady accused is not clear even though the statements of witnesses Uttam and Pappu are considered. In this view of the matter, the learned counsel for the respondents would urge that the revision application may be directed to be heard afresh on merits thereof. ( 5 ) 6. Considering the nature of the impugned judgement, which is bereft of legal reasons, I am inclined to allow the petition. Hence, the petition is allowed. The impugned judgement and order is quashed. The revision application is restored to its original position with direction that the same shall be decided on merits thereof having regard to the inquiry report filed under section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the statements of witnesses. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/CRIWP251-09