J. C. Dalal, E. E. Jhirad and O. P. Rana, for theappellant.S. C. Patwardhan B. Dutta, J. B. Dadachanjl, O. C. Mathurand Ravinder Narain, for respondent No. 1.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byShah, J. The appellant, Mrs. Menezes, is the owner of a123124house in Bombay, and the wife of the first respondent YusufKhan is a tenant of a part of the first floor in that house.On January 17, 1963 one Robert-a servant of the appellant,called the wife of the first respondent a thief and'Halkat'.On the next day the first respondent slapped theface of Robert.This was followed by a heated exchange ofabusive words between the first respondent and theappellant's husband.The first respondent was annoyed andthrew at the appellant's husband a "file" of papers.Thefile did not hit the appellant's husband, but it hit theelbow of the appellant causing a "scratch".The appellantlodged information at the Bandra police station complainingthat the first respondent had committed house trespass inorder to the committing of an offence punishable withimprisonment, had thrown a shoe at her, had slapped the faceof her servant Robert, and had also caused her a "bleedingincised wound on the forearm".The version of the appellantwas a gross exaggeration of the incident.The Officer incharge of the police station was persuaded to enter upon aninvestigation on this information, which by charging therespondent with the offence of trespass was made to appearas if a cognizable offence was committed.The Sub-Inspectorfound that the appellant had suffered a mere scratch on herelbow.The appellant and Robert declined to go to a publichospital for examination or treatment, and were, it isclaimed, examined by a private medical practitioner, whocertified that the appellant bad suffered a "bleedingincised wound, skin deep, size 1" in length on the rightforearm", and that Robert had "a swelling about 1 1/2 " indiameter, roundish, soft and tender", but no bruises.The offence was petty, but was given undue importance.Thecase was transferred from the Court of the PresidencyMagistrate, Bandra, to the Court of the PresidencyMagistrate VI Court, Mazagaon, Bombay, and was entrusted toa special prosecutor on behalf of the State.The TrialMagistrate held that the story that the first respondent hadtrespassed into the house of the appellant was false and thecharge of trespass was made only with a view to persuade thepolice officer to investigate it as a cognizable offence.The story of the appellant that the first respondent hadhurled a shoe at her was also disbelieved.The TrialMagistrate held that simple injuries were caused to Robertand to the appellant and for causing those injuries heconvicted the first respondent of the offence under S. 323I.P. Code and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 10 on eachof the two counts.Against the order of conviction, arevisional application was preferred to the High Court ofJudicature at Bombay.The appellant was no longer concernedwith the proceedings in the High Court, but since there weresome negotiations for compounding the offence, the appellantwas impleaded as a party to the proceeding before the HighCourt.The High Court was of the view that the appellanthad grossly exaggerated her story, that the evidence of themedical practitioner who claimed to have examined theappellant and Robert and to have 125certified the injuries" did "not inspire confidence", thatthe husband of the appellant had addressed provocative andinsulting abuses, and that in a state of excitement therespondent hurled a "file of papers" at the appellant'shusband which missed him and caused a "scratch" on theappellant's forearm.At the time of the incident inquestion, the appellant's husband and the first respondentexchanged vulgar abuses.Apparently the respondent wasannoyed and threw a "file" of papers which caused a merescratch to the appellant.This court had at the time when special leavewas granted directed that Rs. 1,500 be deposited by theappellant by way of costs of the respondents.Inthe circumstances, we direct that Rs. 750 be paid to thefirst respondent and the balance be returned to theappellant.Appeal dismissed.

Cited provisions: Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code