1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 346 OF 2011 ASHOK JAGANNATH RATHOD AND 3 OTHERS ..VERSUS.. AMBADAS MAROTI RATHOD AND ANOTHER Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Prajapati, Advocate h/f Mr.S. D. Chopde, Adv. for the applicants. Mr. P.S. Wathore, Advocate for non-applicant no.1 Mr. Bhagwan M. Lonare, A.P.P. for non-applicant no.2/State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. DATED : 28 th SEPTEMBER , 2011 . Heard Mr. Prajapati, the learned counsel holding for Mr. S. D. Chopde, the learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. P.S. Wathore, the learned counsel for non-applicant no.1 and Mr. Bhagwan M. Lonare, the learned A.P.P. for non-applicant no.2. By this criminal application,the applicants are seeking challenge to the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, dated 13.10.2010 in Criminal Revision No. 79/2009 thereby dismissing the revision filed by the applicants and confirming the order of issuance of process passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola, dated 18.02.2009 in Summary Criminal Case NO. 2073/2008. Brief facts giving rise to this application are as follows : The non-applicant no.1 had filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola against the applicants. The sum and substance of the complaint is that the applicants/accused on 30.12.2007 had obstructed the 2 complainant. The applicants were armed with deadly weapons and assaulted the complaint and his two sons. There was a dispute between the parties about the way and the proceeding was pending before the Sub Divisional Officer, Akola in that respect. The applicants/accused with an intention to teach a lesson to the complainant as he initiated the proceedings before S.D.O, Akola, assaulted the complainant and his sons. It was submitted in the complaint that though the complainant had reported the matter orally to the police authorities, the police authorities paid no need and only N.C. was registered against the accused persons. The learned Magistrate, by perusing the complaint and the report submitted by the concerned police station as also the documents in the nature of medical certificate, found prima facie case against the applicants/accused for the offence punishable under Sections 325, 294, 506 and 504 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly, by order dated 18.2.2009, issued process. The said order of issuance of process was challenged by preferring revision application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola and the same was dismissed by order dated 13.10.2010. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the complaint lodged by non-applicant no.1 against the applicants is nothing but a counter blast to the complaint lodged against applicants. The learned counsel submitted that the learned Magistrate without appreciating the facts of the matter, mechanically issued the process, which was confirmed by the order passed by the revisional Court. As such, he has prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 13.10.2010 passed by the revisional Court and the order dated 18.02.2009 passed by the trial Court issuing process. 3 Per contra, the learned counsel for non-applicant no.1 has opposed the application and prayed for rejection of the application. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Perused the complaint. The complainant has very specifically submitted in the complaint that there was previous enmity between the parties and on 30.12.2007 while complainant was returning from his field, accused persons, who were armed with weapons, obstructed his way and assaulted the complainant and his sons. He has also stated in the complaint that though a report was made to the police authorities, the police authorities, except registering N.C. against the accused, paid no heed to the seriousness of the grievance made by the complainant. Perusal of the record shows that the courts below found sufficient material to proceed against the accused persons. The medical certificates sufficiently made clear that the victims of the assault namely, the complainant and his sons, had received injuries such as CLW and incised wound etc. From the material placed before the Courts below, I find no fault with the order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing process and the order passed by the revisional Court confirming the said order of the learned Magistrate. The learned Revisional Court has in detail dealt with the submissions of the parties and arrived at a conclusion that even assuming and not admitting that no offence under Section 325 of I.P.C. Is made out, even then the allegations are sufficient to attract the ingredients of either sections 323 or 324 of I.P.C. The learned Revisional Court has further observed that the learned Magistrate is at liberty to frame charges after due hearing, according to law. I do not find any fault with the observation that what is to be seen is that whether the complainant has prima facie 4 brought the material to attract ingredients of a particular offence and accordingly the material brought before the Court was sufficient. Hence, no case is made out for exercising the powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In the result, the criminal application is rejected. JUDGE Diwale