1 CR.APL.NO.1699/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1699 OF 2010 1. Sambhaji s/o Irba Bhandare, Age 51 yrs. Occ. service, r/o 19 Melghat, Sana Colony, Parwane Nagar, Tarode (Kh). 2. Renukabai w/o Sambhaji Bhandare, Age 49 yrs., Occ: Household, r/o as above. 3. Sunil s/o Sambhaji Bhandare, Age: 26 yrs. Occ: Education R/o. At present N.K.J. Ayurvedic Medical College & P.G.Centre, Bidar ( K.S.) 4. Sushil s/o Sambhaji Bhandare, Age: 21 yrs. Occ: Education, r/o. At present Arumpur, Tq. Biolali, Dist. Nanded. 5. Soni @ Swati d/o Sambhaji Bhandare, Age: 20 yrs. Occ: Education, r/o. 19 Melghat, Sana Colony, Parwane Nagar, Tarode (Kh.) ...APPLICANTS (ORGL.ACCUSED NO. 1 to 5) VERSUS 1. Vyankati s/o Mariba Boyal, Age: 46 yrs. Occ: Agril., r/o Indiranagar, Dharmabad, Tq.Dharmabad, Dist. Nanded. 2 CR.APL.NO.1699/2010 ...RESPONDENT (ORGL.COMPLAINANT) 2. The State of Maharashtra Through The Secretary, Law and Justice Department Mantralaya, Mumbai. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr.P.M.Gaikwad, Adv., for the petitioners. Mr.K.M.Suryawanshi, APP for State. Mr.N.R.Jamdhade, Adv., for respondent no.1. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:7/1/2011 *** PER COURT : 1. Heard extensively. The applicants submit that it is a case of sheer abuse by launching FIR at the behest of respondent no.1, to avenge a case filed by sister of applicant Sambhaji against respondent no.1 Vyankati. Several submissions are advanced by Mr.Gaikwad to impress that at the relevant time, the applicant no.1 Sambhaji having attended his Government duty at Aurangabad on 5th Sept.,2009, was on the way to Nanded and could not visit the place of offense at Dharmabad in short duration. To substantiate his contention, letters and details of the work-sheets are enclosed. He also submits 3 CR.APL.NO.1699/2010 that the applicant no.3 Sunil is taking medical education at Bider while applicant no.4 Sushil is at Arumpur, Tq.Biloli. The applicant no.5 is female, she is taking education. He repeatedly canvassed that it is a false prosecution, to ensure that the applicant withdraws the case against respondent no.1 initiated by sister of applicant no.1. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 submits that the challenge to the issuance of process is not maintainable in terms of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as alternate remedy is available to the applicants before competent forum. 3. At this stage of the matter, the assertions that the applicant no.1 was on duty and in the process was in journey on the alleged date of the incident cannot be gone into. It may be that the prosecution is false, however, the details and precise narration in the report, prima facie, illustrate the case. This Court is not required to have a roving inquiry in the matter. The scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has its in-built limitations. No case in terms of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to exercise such discretion is projected, however, the interests of the present applicants can be protected by issuance of direction to the learned Judicial 4 CR.APL.NO.1699/2010 Magistrate, First Class. 4. Hence order: (a) Criminal Application is dismissed. Learned Judge seized with SCC No.686/2009 shall ensure to dispose of the same within a period of six months from receiving communication. (b) Considering the status of accused/applicants herein, their personal attendance shall not be insisted upon. Separate application on each of the date will be filed, seeking exemption by the accused herein and the learned Judge shall, without any demur, entertain such application. It is only in the event of emergent situation, if the presence of the applicants herein is required, it will be so communicated well advance to the applicants herein. With the above result, application disposed of. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/1699-10crapl 5 CR.APL.NO.1699/2010