1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMIMAL WRIT PETITION NO.431 OF 2010 Mr.Sardar Mohammed Pathan : Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. : Respondents .... Mr.Prathamesh Gokhale for the petitioner. Mr.S.R.Shinde, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. .... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : MARCH 10, 2010. P.C.: The petitioner challenges the concurrent orders passed by the learned Magistrate thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner for discharge and the order passed by the learned revisional Court thereby dismissing the revision. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an inconsistency in the statement of the first informant’s father on the basis of which the N.C. came to be recorded and the statement in the present proceedings. He submits that in the statement on the basis of which the N.C. has been recorded, the first informant’s father says that the first informant was assaulted with hand whereas in the statement recorded in 2 the present proceedings, he states that the first informant was assaulted with an iron rod. He, therefore, submits that on the basis of these inconsistencies, there is a doubt regarding the prosecution version and on this ground, the application for discharge ought to have been allowed. 3. At the stage of considering an application for discharge, the Court cannot go into the question regarding the truthfulness or otherwise of the material on which the prosecution relies. Only if it is found, taking the prosecution case at its face value, that no ingredients are made out to constitute an offence charged with, the Court would be permitted to discharge the accused. 4. Perusal of the F.I.R. supported by the statement of the witnesses would satisfy the ingredients of the offence punishable under sections 324, 506(II) and 452 of the I.PC. 5. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Criminal Writ Petition is rejected. B. R. GAVAI, J.