1. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. Present Revision has been filed by the petitioner-original accused against order dated 13.1.2014, passed below Exh. 83 on 25.10.2013, by Sessions Judge, in Sessions Case No.12/2013, rejecting the request of the accused persons to call Dy.S.P. Anil Ghuge as witness under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short).

3. The petitioners claim that, they are facing the trial for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein the complainant alleged that on 22.5.2010 he had arranged marriage of his daughter, and in the midnight, the petitioners instigated the daughter to elope with co-accused Deepak Baraskar and Ramchandra Baraskar. After statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., present petitioner No.4 (original accused No.6) had examined herself as defence witness and the evidence for accused was closed and matter was posted for final arguments on 25.10.2013. On that day, the petitioners filed the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. requesting to call Dy.S.P. Ghuge as defence witness. It is claimed that, prosecution witness P.I. A.V. Raikar, the investigating officer and one Head Constable B.V. Jagtap had conspired and misused their powers to bring about malicious and vexatious criminal proceedings against the petitioners. Petitioner No.4 as defence witness deposed that she had given complaints against P.W.10 A.V. Raikar to the higher authorities, vide letters dated 3.8.2010, 11.10.2010 and 23.10.2010. On directions of the Home Minister, Dy. S.P. had conducted the enquiry in the matter, wherein statements of P.W.10 A.V. Raikar and the Head Constable Jagtap were recorded as well as the statements of petitioners. Dy.S.P. Ghuge had submitted the final report on 8.6.2011. P.W. 10 A.V. Raikar in cross examination denied having knowledge about the complaints against him and Head Constable B.V. Jagtap. Thus, the application was made, but the same came to be rejected. The petitioners want to prove the fact of enquiry by Dy.S.P. Ghuge as according to the petitioners, because of the complaints made, they have been falsely implicated.

4. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. It has been argued for the petitioners that the Court refused to call the witness holding that it was discretionary power of the Court and that the petitioners were protracting. Copy of roznama is being pointed out to show that the petitioners did not protract the matter in any manner. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the F.I.R. concerned was filed by Babaji Sambhaji Hawaldar on 20.10.2010 vide Crime No.45/2010 for alleged offence dated 21st /22nd May 2010. Counsel referred to copy of complaint dated 3.8.2010, at Page 59 addressed to the Principal Secretary, Home Department, making grievances against Sambhaji, the father of complainant Babasaheb and against Head Constable Jagtap. Reference was made to Page 64, where the petitioner No.4 had on 11.10.2010 made complaint to the Home Minister against Head Constable Jagtap as well as Sr. P.I. Raikar regarding threats given by Raikar. It is the argument that, thereafter these police officials brought about impugned F.I.R. No.45/2010, which was filed on 20.10.2010 for incident alleged to be on 22.5.2010. Same P.I. Raikar, against whom the petitioners made complaint, went on to investigate the F.I.R. and has also deposed as P.W.10. Argument is that, in the cross examination, this witness went on to deny claiming that he did not know if such complaints were made against him. Thus, it has been submitted that the petitioners wanted to establish as to how false and vexatious prosecution was brought against them taking advantage of the disputes which petitioners had with Sambhaji Hawaldar, the father of complainant with regard to cultivation of land.

5. Petitioners have relied on the case of Rama Paswan