1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 368 OF 2010 Madhukar Sawalarampant Ghatol and others Petitioners V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents Mr. Sachin Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. D.R. Korde, APP for the respondent / State CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. PER COURT : DATED : 28th April, 2010 1. The respondent No.2 filed a private complaint against the present petitioners and two more persons on 9th September, 2004, alleging that the petitioners and two other persons committed offence of dacoity. She said that the incident occurred on 26th February, 2004. She said, the petitioner No.7 was her husband and other petitioners are either relatives or friends of the petitioner No.7. She said, on that day, at about 05.00 p.m., all of them came to her house, and despite her protest, took away her iron cup-board, which contained Rs. 20,000/- and other valuable things belonging to the respondent No.2. While committing this offence, she said, the petitioners and others even assaulted her etc. 2. The complaint was lodged before the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) Loha, and, after recording verification statement of the respondent No.2, the learned Magistrate called the report of police under Sec. 202 of Cr.P.C. After receipt of the report, the learned Magistrate issued process against the petitioners. He dropped two of the accused from the case. Despite filing revision, the petitioners could not succeed in getting the order of issuance of process set aside. 2 3. The question now is, whether the impugned order deserves to be set aside ? The answer is in negative. Having gone through the complaint, I realized that the respondent No.2 made categorical statement assigning different roles to the petitioners. The incident, according her, took place at broad day light, at about 05.00 p.m. It occurred in front of her house and in front of her witnesses. The learned Magistrate called for police report and told the police to record statements of the witnesses named in the complaint, and it seems, the witnesses supported the case of the respondent No.2. On the basis of the material that has come on record, the impugned order of issuance of process was passed. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners contended that this complaint is a concocted story and was filed in the series of cases that the respondent No.2 has filed due to dispute in marital tie. This defence, however, is not available to the petitioners at this stage. 4. The only question that required to be decided in such circumstances is, whether the material on record is sufficient to proceed against the petitioners / accused. As said above, against each of the petitioners, the allegations are made. The witnesses corroborated the complainant’s case. The only weakness that appears prima facie in the respondent No.2’s case is, delay in filing of the complaint. But, at this stage, such delay is not fatal to the case of the respondent No.2. During the trial, she would be able to explain the delay. In any case, there is strong prima facie case against the petitioners, and so, the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. The observations made in this order are of prima facie nature and shall not influence the learned Judge of the lower Court. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) srm/criwp/368/10 3