Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 11 (BOM)

Kiran Naik v. State of Maharashtra

2012-01-04

M.L.TAHALIYANI

body2012
Judgment This criminal application u/s 482 of the Cr. P.C. has been filed to challenge the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai dated 14th June, 2011 in Criminal Revision Application No.41 of 2011. The said criminal revision application was filed by the applicant and three others to challenge the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 30th March 2011. 2. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate had issued a process against the applicant and accused nos.2,3 and 4 to appear before him to answer the charge for the offence punishable u/s 298 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The said order was challenged by the applicant and the said three accused before the Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has allowed the revision application partly and quashed the order of process issued against the original accused nos.2,3 and 4. However, the order summoning the applicant to answer the charge u/s 298 of the Indian Penal Code was maintained. The applicant is aggrieved by the said order. Therefore, this application u/s 482 of the Cr. P.C. 3. I have heard Mr. Bocarro, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and Mr. Hingorani, learned A.P.P. for respondent no.1-State. 4. The original complainant believed in Jain religion. There was dispute between the original complainant and the housing society. It is alleged that the applicant and others in furtherance of their common intention had put the leg bones of the chicken in a paper and planted the same in the house of the original complainant. The original complainant felt that his religious feelings were hurt by the applicant and others. 5. Mr. Bocarro, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that the only evidence on the basis of which the charge is sought to be proved is alleged conversation between the applicant and the original complainant on intercom of the society. It is further stated in the complaint that the applicant had intimated the original complainant that bone pieces were kept by him and other society members and that they would continue to do so. There is no call log record of the intercom. It is not the case that the intercom was manually operated. There is nothing on record to establish that any such talk had taken place. There is no call log record of the intercom. It is not the case that the intercom was manually operated. There is nothing on record to establish that any such talk had taken place. Even if the alleged call was received by the complainant, it is difficult to prove that it was made by the applicant. In the circumstances, the complaint cannot be allowed to continue and it needs to be quashed. 6. Hence, I pass the following order: i) Criminal Revision Application is allowed. ii) The order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 8th February, 2011 and the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No.41 of 2011 dated 14th June, 2011 issuing the process against the applicant for the offence punishable u/s 298 of I.P.C. is set aside. The bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled.