{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1094 OF 2009 Sanjay Motilal Pallave & others APPLICANTS VERSUS Sow.Sangeeta Sanjay Pallave & Another RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.S.A.Ambad, Advocate for applicants Mrs.Yogita M.Kshirsagar, APP for the State Mr.S.K.Barlota, Advocate for respondent No.1 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 20th November 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicants, who are arrayed as accused in RCC No.662/2008, have approached this Court for quashing and setting aside the process issued by the JMFC (Railway), Aurangabad vide order dated 05.09.2008. 2. As notice is already served on the respondents, this application can be decided finally at this stage itself. 3. It appears that respondent No.1 has filed compliant before the JMFC (Railway), Aurangabad for an offence punishable u/s 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of the IPC. The copy of the compliant clearly shows that after filing of the said complaint, verification statement of the {2} complainant was recorded on 11.07.2008. The complaint was initially lodged against total 7 persons, however, considering the disclosure of facts mentioned in the compliant and considering the verification statement, learned Magistrate issued process against accused No.1 to 3 & 7 i.e. husband, father in law, mother in law and brother in law of the complainant only. After process is served on the applicants, they have approached this Court under its extra ordinary jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. In this background heard learned counsel for applicants, followed by the learned APP and learned counsel for the original complainant, respondent No.2. 5. Chapter XV of the Criminal Procedure Code deals with the complaint to be lodged with the Magistrate. Section 200 speaks about examination of the complainant by the magistrate. Chapter XVI deals with commencement of proceedings before the Magistrate. Section 204 of Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with issuance of process, which reads as under- “204. (1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be - (a) A summons – case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or (b) A warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has not jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction. {3} (2)....... (3)...... (4)....... (5).......” 7. On plain reading of section 204 (1) (a) it is clear that if the Magistrate satisfies from the contents of the complaint and verification statement recorded u/s 200, then he can issue process for the offence made out in the complaint as well as in the verification statement. Though the present application is moved u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, yet the learned counsel for the applicant could not point out that as to how the offence for which process is issued, is not made out in the complaint as well as in the verification statement. On bare reading of the verification as well as the contents of the complaint it prima facie appears that the complainant has made out the offence against the applicants u/s 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. If this is the case, then no apparent error is found committed by the learned Magistrate in issuing order of process. The application, which is sans merits, stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln1094-09