1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1497 OF 2008 Mrs. Kalpana Gopal Khandagale. ... Petitioner. V/s. Mr. Ravindra Mohanlal Suchak & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. S.D. Patil for the Petitioner. Mr. Niranjan Mundargi for Respondents 1 to 5. Ms. R.V. Newton, APP for the State. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 25th JANUARY 2010. P.C. :- This is an application made by the Original Complainant challenging the order passed by the learned 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan dated 18th March 2008. The Applicant is the Opponent No.2 to this Revision Application. She is the Original Complainant. 2. The Revision was filed against the order dated 12th June 2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 3rd Court, Kalyan in C.C.No.343 of 2005. 3. The Applicant – Original Complainant had to file a private complaint against the Respondent/Accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kalyan, alleging that her husband Gopal (deceased) was serving as an employee in Suchak Paper Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd. Her husband 2 was a leader of the Union. The Accused are the Proprietor and Supervisors working in the said Company. They are also part of the Union. It appears that her complaint was that on 27th April 2005, the deceased went for his night duty. It was informed by the deceased that an agreement in respect of increase of salary of the employees was going to be signed. Her husband was ready to sign the same agreement but on the same night, it is her allegation that he was killed and his body was thrown in a tank. 4. Thus, it is her case that her husband was killed and met with a homicidal death. She has given her own statement and that of her son. The Magistrate, after perusing the statements and other materials was pleased to issue process calling upon the Accused to show cause as to why a case punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. r/w. Section 34 thereof, be not initiated. 5. The aggrieved Accused filed the aforementioned Revision Application which has been allowed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge. The Complainant, therefore, being dissatisfied, has approached this Court by this instant Writ Petition. 6. I have heard Counsel appearing for parties. I have perused the order on the Revision Application. To my mind, once the matter was investigated, charge-sheet was submitted under Section 304 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. but the Complainant was not satisfied with the same, she filed the 3 complaint and a process has been issued, then, it was not for the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge in his Revisional Jurisdiction to have given a final verdict on the merits of the charges. The learned Judge has made sweeping observations such as there is no documentary evidence to show that it was the murder of the deceased and not an accident. He has commented upon the deposition of witnesses by stating that they are of hear-se nature. The learned Judge has gone ahead and observed that there is no direct evidence nor is there any circumstantial evidence. 7. In my view, unless the learned Judge was satisfied that a case is made out for interference in Revisional Jurisdiction, which is a limited one, there was no necessity for his interfering with the order issuing process. It is not as if the learned Magistrate has made any final observations or drawn such conclusions as were perverse or could not have been drawn at all. The matter was at a prima-facie stage and taking into account the statements, it was his opinion and prima-facie conclusion that the case needs to be probed also from the angle as to whether an offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. Is made out. Such conclusion at the prima-facie stage was not liable to be interfered with. 8. Consequently, the order under challenge has resulted in serious mis-carriage of justice. It has virtually stopped all investigations in a matter which is of serious nature. The learned Judge not only allowed the Revision Application of the 4 Accused but has concluded that no case is made out under Section 302 of I.P.C., I do not see how the learned Judge’s directions to discharge the Accused can be sustained. 9. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The order under challenge is set aside. The case will now proceed in accordance with law. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)