1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.706 OF 2009 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders 1. Heard Shri U.B.Bilolikar, Advocate for the petitioners, Shri B.V.Wagh, APP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Shri Mohd. Naser, Advocate for Respondent No.3. 2. This writ petition challenges the order of issuance of process against present petitioners passed on 1.7.2009 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharmabad, in R.C.C. No.23 of 2009 for offences under Sections 141, 149, 298, 500, 506 and 120-B of I.P.C. and under Section 3(I)(x) and 3(I) (xv) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2 3. Private complaint is lodged by Respondent No.3, alleging that on 28.8.2008, accused Nos. 1 to 12 had quarrel with petitioner No.1 Shriniwas Katte and due to exchange of abuses between them, it is said that petitioner Nos. 2 to 12 came and tried to enter the house of Respondent No.3. They asked him to come out of the house and abused, insulted and threatened him. After an hour or so, they went away. 4. The learned Magistrate has recorded statements of two witnesses, namely, Gangadhar Shankar Ibitwar and Laxman Narsinga Kare. He also perused the documents produced with list Exhibit 2 and the complaint given to the Superintendent of Police, Nanded and other applications. 5. Advocate Shri Bilolikar drew my attention to the report of the Sub Divisional Officer, Dharmabad to the Superintendent of Police, Nanded, which is dated 13.11.2008 and the copy of 3 which is at Exhibit B with the writ petition. The report shows that it was Respondent No.3 who had, in fact, abused filthily and provoked the persons of Lingayat community and this is said to have resulted in subsequent incident. The Sub Division Officer has come to the conclusion that the complaint of Respondent No. 3 was false and was filed only to harass present petitioners. Whether the complaint was false and whether the statements of Respondent No.3 and witnesses Gangadhar and Laxman before the Magistrate were true can be decided only after evidence is recorded. 6. At this stage, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate committed any error in issuing process against the present petitioners on the basis of statement of Respondent No.3 and his witnesses and the the documents produced before the learned Magistrate. Therefore, it is not possible to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Magistrate while issuing 4 process. 7. However, in case of committal of case by the Magistrate to the Court of Sessions, liberty to the petitioners are at liberty to move the learned Special Judge for discharge under Section 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Same shall be decided on merit. 8. At the request of Shri Bilolikar, learned Advocate for the petitioners, it is directed that interim protection shall continue for two weeks from today within which period the petitioners shall appear before the Magistrate and apply for regular bail. 9. With liberty and interim protection as above, writ petition is disposed of. ٍاDate:18/11/2009 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/criwp706.09