1 Cri.Appl.No.1657 of 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1657 OF 2004 1. Jaya Fransis Mani, Age-45 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Gandhi Nagar, Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. 2. Alexander Manik, Age-47 years, Occu-Service, 3. Nayan Sagar Mani, Age-40 years, Occu-Service, Both of 2 & 3 R/o. Deepnagar, Tq.Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. Yasin Khan S/o.Ramzan Khan Pathan, Age-45 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Deepnagar, Tal.Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. 2. State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS Mr.S.S.Patil, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr.D.V.Tele, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. Mr.J.M.Murkute, learned counsel for respondent no.1. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 07/03/2011 2 Cri.Appl.No.1657 of 2004 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. By the present application, the applicants have approached this Court u/s. 482 of The Cr.P.C. to quash and set aside the order of issuance of process, by learned J.M.F.C. Parali in SCC No.505/2004 vide its order dated 12/12/2003. 2. Record shows that Rule was issued in this application on 01/09/2004. 3. Heard learned counsel for applicants. Perused the record, particularly the complaint and verification statement of the complainant recorded below the complaint. On going through the facts averred in the complaint as well as the verification statement, learned Magistrate had issued process against the applicants for the offence punishable u/s. 341, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of The IPC on 24/05/2004. According to learned counsel for applicants, at the time of alleged incident averred in the complaint, these applicants were not present at the place of incident and they are falsely implicated in the said complaint. The legal position is very clear on this aspect that at the time of issuance of process, learned Trial Court to consider only the facts averred in the complaint supported by the verification statement. For the alleged offences, the facts stated in the complaint are supported by the verification of the applicants, clearly made out prima facie case for issuance of process u/s. 341, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of The IPC. Learned Trial Court is not supposed to consider what should be the defence of the proposed 3 Cri.Appl.No.1657 of 2004 accused, which the applicants have raised in this application. Considering this aspect and the legal position, I do not find any fault in the order of issuance of process, passed by the learned Trial Court i.e. J.M.F.C. Parali Vaijnath In the premise, application sans any merit, hence rejected. 4. Rule stands discharged. R & P be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/MAR. 2011/cri.appl.1657-04