1 (03) wp 787.26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No.787/2026 (Laxmanrao V State of Maharashtra) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A.M. Sudame, Advocate with Mr. S.H. Wasnik, for the petitioner. Mr. K.R. Lule, APP for respondent-State. CORAM : Mehroz K. Pathan, J. DATE : 06-10-2026. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khamgaon, below Exhibit-18 in RCC No.137/2024, whereby the application for discharge preferred by the applicant/accused Laxman came to be rejected. The applicant also challenges the order dated 05.03.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gondia, below Exhibit-1 in Criminal Revision No.37/2025, whereby the order rejecting the discharge application came to be confirmed and the revision application came to be dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present prosecution is an outcome of previous enmity between the applicant and the complainant. It is alleged that the applicant was an agricultural tenant in respect of the land owned by the complainant and her deceased husband. It is submitted that, due to such previous enmity, the complainant has lodged a false complaint with an intention to falsely implicate the applicant in a criminal case which, according to the applicant, had never taken place. Learned counsel further submits that even upon perusal of the chargesheet and the material collected by the prosecution, no offence punishable under Sections 324, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the applicant. The learned Trial Court, therefore, committed an error in rejecting the application for 2026:BHC-NAG:13434 2 (03) wp 787.26.odt discharge. The dispute between the parties pertains to agricultural land bearing Survey No.250, admeasuring 0.51 HR. Learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, submits that the impugned orders passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Revisional Court are arbitrary, illegal and suffer from non-application of mind. The findings recorded by the Courts below are contrary to the material available on record and, therefore, warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. 3. On the other hand, learned APP appearing for the respondent/State submits that a perusal of the chargesheet and the material collected during the course of investigation clearly makes out a case for framing of charge against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the allegations made in the FIR are substantiated by the statements of the witnesses recorded by the prosecution during the course of investigation. The investigation also discloses medical evidence in the form of an injury certificate, which corroborates the allegations regarding the assault made by the applicant. Learned APP further submits that, upon completion of investigation, the applicant has been chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504 and 506 of the IPC. It is submitted that, considering the investigation papers which culminated in the filing of the chargesheet, there is sufficient material on record to proceed against the applicant and to frame the charge. The existence of sufficient material against the applicant has rightly been appreciated by the learned Trial Court while rejecting the application for discharge. Learned APP, therefore, submits that the learned Trial Court has committed no error in rejecting the discharge application and that the learned Revisional Court has also rightly confirmed the said order. Hence, no interference is warranted by this Court, and the present application deserves to be dismissed. 3 (03) wp 787.26.odt 4. I have gone through the order dated 05.03.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gondia, below Exhibit-1 in Criminal Revision No.37/2025, whereby the revision preferred by the applicant came to be dismissed. I have also gone through the order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khamgaon, below Exhibit- 18 in RCC No.137/2024. A perusal of the FIR shows that there are direct allegations against the applicant and co-accused Pranali of having assaulted the complainant with an intention to cause hurt. There are also allegations of abuse and criminal intimidation. The allegations made in the FIR are prima facie corroborated by the statements of the witnesses recorded by the prosecution during the course of investigation. The injury certificate shows that the complainant was examined on the very date of the incident, i.e. 28.02.2024, and the complainant had sustained blunt trauma. The weapon allegedly used in the incident was also sent for examination through the Medical Officer and the report has been placed on record. Thus, the medical evidence and the other material collected during the course of investigation lend prima facie support to the allegations made in the FIR. The chargesheet also contains the statements of Jiranbai Taram and Biranbai Raut, which corroborate the allegations made in the FIR as well as the statement of Dhurpatabai. The material collected during the course of investigation, therefore, cannot be said to be insufficient to proceed against the applicant. 5. At the stage of considering an application for discharge, the Court is required to examine whether the material collected by the prosecution discloses sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused and for framing of charge. In the present case, on a consideration of the FIR, the statements of the witnesses, the injury certificate and the other material forming part of the chargesheet, I do not find any error committed by the learned Trial Court. The learned 4 (03) wp 787.26.odt Revisional Court has also considered the material collected by the prosecution, which culminated in the filing of the chargesheet, and has rightly found that a case is made out for framing of the aforesaid charges against the applicant. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are based on the material available on record and do not suffer from any perversity or non-application of mind. In the circumstances, no case is made out for interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. 6. The writ petition is devoid of merit and substance and is, accordingly, dismissed. 7. Needless to state, the observations made herein are purely prima facie in nature and have been recorded only for the purpose of deciding the present petition challenging the rejection of the application for discharge. The learned Trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made herein while deciding the application on merits. (Mehroz K. Pathan, J.) Deshmukh Signed by: Mr. S.Deshmukh Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 08/10/2026 14:50:01