1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Cri. Writ Petition No. 362/2010 Vijay s/o Raosaheb Dukare Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Others. ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ Mr. Bhushan Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.D. Rakh, A.P.P. for No.1/State. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Date : 27th APRIL, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1 This writ petition is challenging the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge-3, Beed in Cri. Revision Application No.60/2009. 2 The facts leading to this writ petition were as under. The petitioners belong to a particular community of village Beedsavangi. The 2 respondent no.2 does not belong to the community of the petitioners. It is alleged that the respondent no.2 and his companions started digging the burial ground of the petitioners’ community at village Beedsavangi, on 07/07/2007. This it appears, they provoked the petitioners and his community members. It appears, they went to their burial ground to stop the digging operation which the respondent no.2 had initiated. There occurred a violent incident between the petitioner and co-accused and the respondent no.2 and his companions. In the violent melee the respondent no.2 and his companions sustained injuries. Respondent no.2 therefore, filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner and his co- accused before the police station and the police registered offence. However, there is other side to this incident. The petitioner also filed a complaint that the respondent no. 2 and his companions attacked him and his companions and in this violence the respondent no.2 and his companions used 3 weapons like sticks, iron rod, stones and above all, there was also a gun in the hands of one Baban who was the companion of the respondent no.2. It is alleged by the petitioners in their complaint that Baban fired three rounds at him and his companions. He said, though no one sustained any injury because of gun shots, respondent no.2 and his companions intended to commit murder etc.. His complaint was also lodged with the police station and was registered as an offence. It is obvious that the complaint of the petitioner alleged inter alia an offence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code, against the respondent no.2 and his companions. I am told that the police filed charge sheet against the respondent no.2 and others and 11 others and the case is now pending before the Sessions Court. The charge sheet which the police sent against the petitioners, did not disclose an offence exclusively triable by Court of Sessions and so the case remained pending before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), 4 Ashti. The learned judge of the revisional court held that both these cases arise from one and the same incident and so he directed the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Ashti to commit the case which was pending before him to the Court of Sessions. This order is sought to be challenged in this writ petition. 3 The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, raised two points (i) he asserted that the order impugned is illegal because this was passed without hearing his client’s side. Secondly, he said that the conclusion of the learned judge of the revisional Court is incorrect because the cases did not arise from one incident. He tried to show me that place of incident of the case which is pending before Sessions Court is the grave yard of the petitioners’ community whereas the place of offence in the other case is the residence of the respondent no.2. The learned judge of the revisional Court took into account this aspect of the matter even though the petitioners 5 were not heard by him. He pointed out and rightly so that the two places of offences are situated very close to each other and looking to the nature of the case, it was clear to him that the cases arise from one and the same incident. I do not find any incorrectness in the order. The writ petition thus should fail. Writ petition dismissed. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] tsk/ ok