SHOBHA RAMESH BAWANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Admit. Heard finally by consent.

(3.) It is seen from the impugned order dated 10/02/2012 discharging respondents No. 2 and 3 from the case that the learned Additional Sessions Judge appreciated the evidence and meticulously examined the statement of witnesses, which is not permissible while considering the application filed for discharge of the case under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code. What is required to be seen as to whether or not there are sufficient grounds for proceeding further in the matter and even if there is some strong suspicion with some material prima facie showing involvement of the applicant/accused in the alleged crime, it would be sufficient for proceeding further in the matter. The law in this regard is well settled and a useful reference can be made by relying upon the cases of (i) Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander & another, 2012 9 SCC 460 and (ii) Onkar Nath Mishra & others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & another, 2008 2 SCC 561.