1 WP : 2810/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2810 OF 2010 Amar Mataram Pandey & Anr. … Petitioners Vs. Pravin Champaklal Rathod & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. V.G. Indrale, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. Santosh Adakia, Advocate for respondent no.1 Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for State. CORAM : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 9th December, 2010 P.C.:- 1. This petition is filed under Article 227 Constitution of India read with 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 30th November 2009 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dadar, Mumbai issuing process against the petitioners in Criminal Case No.575/SS/2009 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with 34 Indian Penal Code and for quashing of the judgment and order dated 25th August 2010 passed by the Sessions Court, rejecting the Criminal Revision Application No.20 of 2010 preferred by the applicant from the order of issuance of process. There is neither any averment made in the petition nor any prayer for quashing of the proceedings. Since there is no challenge to the proceedings itself in the petition, the petition which is in the nature of 2 WP : 2810/2010 second revision filed by the petitioners to challenge the order of issuance of process is liable to be dismissed. There cannot be a second revision filed in view of Section 397(3) Cr.P.C.. 2. The private complaint filed by the respondent relates to the incident dated 14th January 2009. The complaint alleges that on that day at about 5.00 pm., one Pramod Pande came to the office of respondent no.2. He informed respondent no.2 that he had been sent under the instructions and directions of the petitioners. He allegedly threatened respondent no.2 in the presence of his staff members that respondent no. 2 would be killed by petitioner no.1, if respondent no.2 did not pay a sum of Rs.22.00 lacs to respondent no.1 immediately. It is alleged that he has also threatened respondent no. 2 in a very abusive language. He violated, pushed a female staff member of respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 claims to have taken photograph of Pande, while he was in the office. After the incident, when respondent no.2 rushed to Dadar Police Station, the Police recorded his complaint as N.C. complaint and therefore respondent no.2 was constrained to file a private complaint in the court. 3. Mr. Indrale, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent no.2 has not pointed out any connection between the petitioners and Mr. Pramod Pande, who had actually visited the office of respondent no.2. He submits that it would be easy of any person to take another persons name saying that he had been sent by another person. It is well established that at the time of issuance of process, 3 WP : 2810/2010 the Court is only required to look into the contents of the complaint to see whether the facts alleged in the complaint make out an offence and whether there is some material on record in support of the facts alleged. The court must be prima facie satisfied on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint, that sufficient grounds exist in the proceedings in which he is the accused, detailed enquiry in regard to merits and demerits of the case, at this stage, is not permissible. Perusal of the complaint, the statement and verification of respondent no.2, justified the order of issuance of process passed by the learned Magistrate, which has been confirmed by the Court of Sessions. Mr. Indrale then points out that respondent no.2 has not disclosed the names of the witnesses in his complaint. Non disclosure of names of the witnesses, would merely be an irregularity and would not be fatal. It would not be possible to quash the order of issuance of process on the ground that the names of the witnesses are not disclosed in the complaint as required by the Criminal Manual. .In the circumstances, this Court finds no merits in the petition filed. Hence, the petition is dismissed in limine. ( Smt.R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)