wp619.06 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 619 OF 2006 Dhondopant s/o Narhari Dhanorkar ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Mrs. S.G. Chincholkar h/f Mr. G. N. Chincholkar, advocate for the petitioner Mr. S. D. Kaldate, APP for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. ..... CORAM: A.V. POTDAR, J. DATED: 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2011 PER COURT:- 1 The present criminal writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.8.2006, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded in Criminal Revision No. 177 of 2003, thereby confirming the judgment and order dated 15.9.2003, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nanded by which the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. 2 I have heard Mrs. Chincholkar, learned counsel for the petitioner wp619.06 -2- followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for the respondent 1 to 5. None appears for respondent No.6, even though served. 3 With the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for respondent Nos. 1 to 5, I have perused the entire record. The record shows that the petitioner herein had filed a complaint before the learned J.M.F.C. Nanded on 20.6.2002, which was numbered as R.C.C. No. 677 of 2002. This complaint is against the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 herein, alleging that they have assaulted the petitioner, who was working in Amol Restaurant at Nanded. The said complaint was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. It appears that on presentation of complaint before the learned J.M.F.C. Nanded, who had passed an order directing the concerned police station to carry out investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The P.S.O. Ardhapur was directed to file report of investigation. It further appears that P.S.I. Ardhapur police station had submitted his report. The petitioner had filed criminal writ petition No. 276 of 2002, praying for fresh investigation. It further appears that this Court by order dated 3.3.2003, has disposed of the said criminal writ petition. 4 It appears that after completion of investigation, a report of “B” wp619.06 -3- summary was filed before the learned J.M.F.C. Nanded in R.C.C. No. 677 of 2002. The said report was accepted by the learned J.M.F.C. vide order dated 15.9.2003. The learned J.M.F.C. while accepting the “B” summary report, passed an order of dismissal of complaint, as according to him, there is no sufficient ground for proceeding the matter against the respondents, who were arrayed as accused in the said complaint. 5 It further appears that the legality and correctness of order of dismissal of complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. was questioned before the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded by filing Criminal Revision No. 177 of 2003. It appears that by his judgment and order dated 16.8.2006, the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded was pleased to dismiss the said Criminal Revision. In para 5 of his judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge observed that the record speaks that the PSO of Ardhapur police station has submitted a report in consequence of the order passed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The learned lower court found no substance in the complaint and thereby allowed the request of PSO to grant ‘B’ summary. The lower court further recorded the statements of the witnesses and complainant and again found no substance to proceed with the case and passed the order under section 203 of Cr.P.C. wp619.06 -4- 6 To substantiate the alleged complaint against these respondents, particularly the allegations of the assault. When the earlier criminal writ petition came up for hearing for admission, it is observed by this Bench that whether there is substance or there is no substance about the alleged assault, it can be worked out from the medical papers, if any, on record. On perusal of the entire record, I do not see that at any point of time the petitioner was examined by the Medical Officer and Medical certificate showing the injuries suffered due to said assault is also not placed on record. Thus, there is no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that without any substance the learned lower court erroneously accepted ‘B’ summary report, which is subsequently confirmed in Criminal Revision by the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded. 7 In the result, the instant criminal writ petition devoid of any merits and the same stands rejected accordingly. ( A.V. POTDAR, J. ) rlj/