* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 136 OF 2009 Shri.Subhash Yashwant Chavan and 5 Ors. .....Petitioners v/s. Shri.Prakash Hanumante Gosavi and anr. .....Respondents Mr.V.N.Tayade,adv.for petitioners. Mr.H.J.Dedhia, APP for State. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 24TH MARCH, 2009. P.C. : 1. Heard counsel for both sides. 2. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to challenge the order of issuance of process dated 1st March, 2008 by the court of Metropolitan Magistrate and the order dated 24th November, 2008 passed by the court of Sessions on Criminal Revision Application No.59 of 2008. 3. Respondent no.1 filed the complaint in Criminal Case No. 875 of 2008 in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ulhasnagar for the offences punishable under Section 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. It is alleged in the complaint that * 2 * the petitioners have encroached upon some open space behind the house of the complainant. When the complainant's wife asked the petitioner's to remove the encroachment and vacate the land, the petitioners assaulted the complainant and also threatened that he would be killed or maimed. It is also alleged in the complaint that original accused no.4 had caught the complainant by hair of his head and pushed him against the wall of the house. On 1st March, 2008 the statement of the complainant on verification was recorded, a copy of which is annexed to the application. 4. Mr.Tayade, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that if one peruses the statement of verification, it can be noticed that it contains vague allegations against the petitioners. The statement of verification does not refer the date and time of the alleged incident. Therefore, according to him, the learned trial judge ought not to have issued process against the petitioners. 5. He further submits that the learned revisional court has erred in observing that the statement in verification is in consonance with the complaint and what is important is the substance and no parrot like reproduction of the complaint in verification. The learned revisional court found in the complaint as well as in the verification statement, the allegations as regards threat, abuse and assault by one of the petitioners. Therefore, the revisional court dismissed the criminal revision application. * 3 * 6. Mr.Tayade relying upon the decision of this court in the case of V.M.Sanghi & anr. V/s.Rammorath Gourishankar Tiwari & Anr. reported in 1988 (3)B.C.R.page 319, submits that if there is contradiction between the complaint filed and the preliminary statement of the complainant, what should be preferred is the preliminary statement. In the instant case, there is no contradiction as such between the complaint and the statement of verification. What is missing in the statement of verification is the date of the alleged incident. The complainant however has narrated the acts on the part of the petitioners which on a prima-facie view do make out a case for the offences of assault, criminal intimidation and abuse. The learned revisional court is correct in its observations that the statement of verification has to be in consonance with the complaint and parrot like reproduction of the contents of the complaint is not accepted. I have perused the complaint, the Statement in verification and I am satisfied that both do reflect on a prima-facie view the offences as alleged as against the petitioners. In that circumstance, it cannot be said that the order of issuance of process is an illegal order. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J]