1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRI. REVISION APPLICATION NO. 324 OF 2009 Madhukar s/o Subrao Pawar, Aged 60 years, Occ. Legal Practitioner, R/o Jawahar Colony, Taluka and District Beed. Applicant V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Shankar s/o Tukaram Kavale, Aged 49 years, Occupation Service, R/o Officers Colony, Beed, Taluka and District Beed Respondent Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, Advocate for the applicant Mr. S.N. Kendre, APP for the respondent No. 1 / State Mr. S.B. Choudhari, Advocate for the respondent No.2 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 13th October, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This revision is filed against the order passed by the learned Addl Sessions Judge – 3, Beed, rejecting applicant’s application seeking discharge from the Special Case No. 06 of 2008. 2. The applicant is accused No.2 in that case. Both these accused are prosecuted for committing offence punishable under Ss. 353, 323, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 (i) (x) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Before the charge to be framed by the learned Special Judge, the applicant moved an application seeking his discharge from the case. He said that there is no ground for proceeding against him. The learned Special Judge rejected his contention saying that there is 2 ample material against him. At such stage, what is required to be perused, is the prosecution material that come to the Court through the charge-sheet. In other words, the statements of the complainant and the witnesses made to the police recorded under Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C. are required to be read. Such statements are required to be read to find out whether there is sufficient material to proceed against an accused. In this case, the complainant specifically named the applicant and said that he demanded from him explanation as to why the complainant had not issued the cheques earlier. The complainant further said that the other accused then abused and assaulted him, and the present applicant instigated the other accused for doing so. The applicant tries to escape the liability by suggesting that it is not he who assaulted, abused and insulted the complainant, but it was the other accused who did it, and so, he should be spared. The applicant suggested that he did nothing during the incident and was only a by- standard watching the incident. He thereby suggested that he was neutral in the dispute between the complainant and the other accused. The applicant’s contention is not acceptable, because the complainant has specifically named him as one of his tormentors. Though the complainant did not say that the applicant assaulted, abused and insulted him, he specifically said that it was on his instigation the other accused did it. Immediately after the incident, the applicant met the complainant and his wife and told them that the other accused had committed a mistake and on his behalf he would apologies to the complainant. Despite of his conciliatory approach, the complainant, his wife and others proceeded towards the police station and lodged the complaint immediately. Had the applicant not played any role in the incident, the complainant would not have named him as one of the accused in this case. So, it cannot be said that there is no ground to proceed against the applicant in this case. There is no error on the part of the learned Special Judge in rejecting 3 the applicant’s application seeking discharge. Therefore, the Criminal Revision Application stands dismissed. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/cra/324/09/131010