PANDHRINATH MAROTIDHORDE Vs. BHAUSAHEB MAROTI DHODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing the order of issuance of process against the petitioners passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vaijapur, in a criminal case filed by the respondent No. 1 against them and it arises out of the following facts : Respondent No. 1 is the original complainant. He filed a complaint in the trial Court that survey No. 57 situated at village Dongaon was in his exclusive possession and he had planted sugarcane in the said land. He alleged further that he was residing also in the same land. He alleged that on the date of the offence i.e, on 7th May, 1980, between 9 to 10 a.m. Accused No. 1 committed criminal trespass in the said land and when objected by the complainant started abusing him. He alleged further that Accused No. 2 came there and both the Accused assaulted him. He alleged that Accused No. 2 caughthold of the hand of complainant and Accused No. 1 gave slaps on his face and blows and strokes on his chest. He alleged that the witnesses intervened and rescued him. This complaint was filed on 26th May, 19 0. The Complainant was examined on oath by the learned Magistrate and on the same day, the learned Magistrate passed the order of issuing process under sections 323, 447 and 504 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is this order of issuance of process which is being sought to be quashed by the petitioners.

(2.) Now, the principle underlying for quashing of proceedings is quite clear. If after reading the complaint it is apparent that no offence of any kind is disclosed in the complaint, the order of issuance of process deserves to be quashed. In any other case, the order of issuance cannot be quashed. I questioned Mr. A. B. Naik, appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, as to whether any offence is disclosed after reading the complaint and the verification of the complaint recorded by the learned Magistrate on the same day he could not argue that no offence of any kind was disclosed. Sufficiency of evidence is not to be considered at this stage. If we read the complaint it clearly discloses an offence against both the Accused. The Complainant has charged the Accused with common intention also. It was urged by Mr. Naik that the complaint is filed with an ulterior motive of settling the property-dispute by way of compromise. At this stage there is nothing on record to draw such an inference. Mr. Naik urged that one more Kisan has also filed a complaint against these two Accused. That is wholly irrelevant. The real question is whether upon reading the complaint any offence of any kind is disclosed and if an offence is disclosed the order of issuance of process cannot be quashed. I have clearly pointed out that the learned Counsel himself could not deny that after reading the complaint and the verification he cannot be argue that an offence is not disclosed. It, therefore, means that an offence is prima facie disclosed and therefore, this is a fit case for not quashing the order of issuance of process.

(3.) The result is that the petition is dismissed. Rule discharged.