:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2828 OF 2007 Dipak Manohar Bhosale and anr. ..Applicants Vs. Mrs. Anuradha Dipak Bhosale and anr. ..Respondents Mr. Manoj Chatage for the applicants. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for State. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : August 30, 2007. Date : August 30, 2007. Date : August 30, 2007. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants who are accused in S.C.C. No.2859 of 2006 filed by the present respondent no.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 441, 494, 499 and 503 read with Section 34 of IPC. On verification, the learned JMFC, Kolhapur issued an order of process against the accused no.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of IPC and against both the accused for the offence punishable under Section 500 read with Section 34 of IPC. The said order was challenged in Criminal Revision Application NO. 124 :2: of 2006 which came to be dismissed by the learned Ad-hoc Sessions Judge at Kolhapur on 11/5/2007. Hence, this petition. 2. On perusal of the complaint filed by the present respondent no.1, it is clear that she has made out a triable case and she has also furnished a list of witnesses to be examined in support of her case. The learned Ad-hoc Sessions Judge has considered the submissions made by the applicants and noted that the order of issuance did not suffer from any perversities or illegalities. The respondent no.1 has made specific allegations against the accused and having considered her verification, the process has been issued for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 against accused no.1 and under Section 500 read with Section 34 of IPC against both the accused. No interference is called for in the view taken by the Sessions Court. 3. Hence the application is rejected. :3: (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)