The court upholds that a prima facie case for issuing process can be based on the evidence presented, and the trial court's discretion should not be interfered with lightly.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL S. KILOR, J.

1. Heard.

2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short) whereby a challenge is raised to the order dated 18/10/2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Criminal Revision No. 07 of 2022 dismissing the revision preferred by the applicants challenging the order dated 22/12/2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No.2, Dhamangaon Railway in Regular Criminal Case No. 49 of 2018 issuing process against the applicants.

4. The applicant No.1 is the founder President, applicant No.2 was a Vice President, applicant Nos.3 and 4 were the Secretaries, applicant No.5 was the Treasurer and applicant Nos. 6 to 14 were the Members/ Trustees of “Shri Sant Shankar Maharaj Ashram Trust.”

5. The respondent No.2 filed Misc. Criminal Application No. 83 of 2016 in the Court of learned Magistrate, Dhamangaon on 14/09/2016 under Section 156(3) and Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. requesting to register First Information Report (FIR). It is alleged in the complaint that Shri Sant Shankar Maharaj Ashram Trust, Pimpalkhuta and its office bearers are indulging in the acts of human sacrifice and other inhuman, evil and aghori practices and black magic.

6. The learned Magistrate rejected the said prayer and kept the matter for verification. Thereafter, statements of certain witnesses were recorded and on 24/02/2017 the learned Magistrate, upon observing that there is no direct evidence, an inquiry was conducted under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C.

7. The concerned Police Station submitted negative report on 08/06/2017.

8. On 29/08/2017 the learned Magistrate directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Amravati to investigate the matter under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. by himself or by his competent subordinate and to record statements of witnesses having personal knowledge.

9. Thereupon, the matter was re-inquired by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO) concluding that no offence of any kind was committed by any of the applicants.

10. However, the learned Magistrate took cognizance after the evidence of a witness-Shyam Manav on 04/05/2018 and issued process. The same was challenged in Criminal Revision Application No.36 of 2018, wherein the order of issuance of process was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the learned Magistrate for passing appropriate order considering the locus and other points raised by the applicants.

11. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 examined two more witnesses with the permission of the learned Magistrate and after considering the material available on record the learned Magistrate passed the order dated 22/12/2021 issuing process against the applicant.

12. The same was the subject matter of challenge before the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Criminal Revision No.7 of 2022. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati vide its judgment and order dated 18/10/2022 dismissed the revision petition holding that no patent illegality found for interference.

13. Hence, this application, raising a challenge to the order of issuance of process dated 22/12/2021 and to the order dismissing the revision petition filed against the order of issuance of process, vide judgment and order dated 18/10/2022.

14. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

15. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that both the reports of Police, including the report of SDPO, suggest that no offence is committed by the applicants. However, ignoring the said reports the learned