1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.418/2010 Applicant :- Narayan s/o Bajirao Parwatkar Aged about 65 years, Occu. Retired Public Servant R/o Mahispur Mocharda, Tq. Darypur, Dist. Amravati. ...Versus... Non-applicants :- 1. Nilkanth s/o Wakila Parwatkar Aged 50 yeas, Occ. 2. Dewanand Nilkanth Parwatkar Aged 25 years, Occ. 3. Sau. Nilawati w/o Nilkanth Parwatkar Aged 48 years, Occ. All R/o Mahispur Macharda, Tq. Darypur, Dist. Amravati. 4. State of Maharashtra. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri S.D. Dharaskar, Adv. for applicant] CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 01.04.2010 1. This application is directed against the order dated 17.6.2009, below Exh.56 in Misc. Criminal Case No.27/2006 and confirmed by the judgment and order dated 21.1.2010 in Criminal Revision No.86/2009, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur in the matter of exercise of power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. In support of the criminal application, learned Counsel for the applicant argued that in the evidence that was tendered before the trial Court, witness No.2 - Shrikrushna 2 deposed that accused Nilawanti had also abused complainant along with main accused Nilkantha and that is the reason why the Court ought to have issued accused summons in exercise of power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant and I have also gone through the impugned orders. Seeing the evidence of P.W. 2 - Shrikrushna and other witnesses, I find that specific abuses given by the accused No.1 have been mentioned in the evidence. However, this witness P.W.2 - Shrikrushna has mentioned that Nilawanti and her husband abused the complainant. There is no specific evidence against her as contended by learned Counsel for the applicant. Law is well settled that power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised mechanically and the Court must see whether there is likelihood of conviction being recorded against the accused, who is proposed to be added. In my opinion, the evidence shown to me is wholly insufficient to do so. That apart, learned Counsel for the applicant himself states that initially when the complaint was registered, no process was issued against Nilawanti and on the contrary prayer for issuing process to her was dismissed and that order has not been challenged and was not challenged at any point of time. That is the another reason why this criminal application cannot be entertained. For the above reasons, I find no merit in the present criminal application. The same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE SSW