(1) CRI.WP. 867.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 867 OF 2010 Yeshwant S/o Bapu Dhaigude and ors. .. Petitioners VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and anr. .. Respondents ... Mr. N.B. Ghute, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for the respondent-State ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 1ST OCTOBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. By this Petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the order pertaining to issuance of process against them and order passed in Criminal Revision Application no.101 of 2009 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate in respect of the issuance of the proceedings. 2. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners. The private complaint case was filed by the respondent no.2 for offence under section 323, 504, (2) CRI.WP. 867.2010 447, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In that private complaint case (Criminal case no. 271 of 2009) the respondent no.2 cited Bandu S/o Bhaugiri as an eye witness of the incident. The case of the respondent no.2 is that on date of incident i.e. 14.6.2009 at about 10.00 am., the accused nos. 1 and 2 were found grazing she-goats in his land and, therefore, he drove the goats away by pelting stones. Thereupon, the accused nos. 1 and 2 picked up quarrel with him. The other three accused rushed to the land and, thereafter, assaulted him. They also threatened him. After verification of the complaint, the learned Magistrate issued process. It was challenged before the Sessions Court by filing Revision Application no. 101 of 2009. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the Revision Application. 3. It is pertinent to notice that in the revisional Court, the petitioners filed affidavit of Bandu S/o Bhaugiri in order to show that he had not witnessed the incident. Thus, it is apparent that before the commencement of the trial of the private complaint case, the witness is shown to be hostile to (3) CRI.WP. 867.2010 the complainant. In other words, the said eye witness was probably won over by the petitioners and, therefore, he filed the affidavit in the Criminal Revision Application filed by them. For, otherwise the witness had no business to know that such Revision Application was filed by the petitioners and he was cited as a witness in a private complaint case. This conduct of the petitioners is improper and unfair. 4. Considering the reasons, ascribed by the learned Sessions Judge, and in view of the fact that the process has been issued after following due procedure, I find it difficult to entertain the Petition. Hence, it is dismissed. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp