1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUD ICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3664/2009 Applicant :- Shri Mahadeo s/o Yadav Shelke, Complainant aged about 62 years, Occupation ; Agriculturist, R/o Gopalnagar, Khamgaon, Tq. Khamgaon, District. Buldhana. ...Versus... Respondents :- 1. State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Shavaji nagar, Khamgaon, Distt. Buldhana. Accused 2. Awadhut s/o Prabhakar Galphade, Aged about 47 years, Occ. Service, R/o Purwal Galli, Khamgaon, Tahsil : Khamgaon, District : Buldhana. ................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................ [Shri R.J. Kankale, Adv. for applicant] [Shri D.B. Patel, APP for respdt. No.1] [Shri A.L. Deshpande, Adv. for respdt. No.2] CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 25.03.2010 1. This application is directed against the revisional judgment and order made by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon dated 18.7.2009 in Criminal Revision No.37/2005 by which the order of issuance of process dated 1.2.2003 was quashed against respondent No.2 and others as well. 2. In support of the application, learned Counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the Sessions Judge was not 2 justified in quashing the process against respondent No.2 since there was material to that effect against him and as a matter of fact he was the principal accused and had instigated other accused to commit the offence. 3. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the application and argued that reading of the complaint and the verification statement i.e. recorded by the Court do not show any offence being made out against respondent No.2 and therefore, the revisional Court at least in so far as respondent No.2 was concerned, is fully justified in quashing the process at the instance of respondent No.2. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the rival parties I find that in so far as order of issuance of process against respondent No.2 is concerned, the same appears to have been rightly set aside inasmuch as perusal of the complaint and evidence of the complainant do not show any evidence against respondent No.2 and on the contrary allegation is that respondent No.2 had merely instigated the other accused persons. There is no allegation that respondent No.2 had entered the field and assaulted and the process was issued under that offence. In view of this, the judgment and order made by the revisional Court of quashing the process against respondent No.2 will have to be confirmed. 5. In view of this, I make the following order. O R D E R (i) Criminal Application is dismissed. JUDGE ssw