1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2104 OF 2008 Sardar Harjitsing Sahani S/o Sardar Tirthsing Sahani Applicant V/s Sardar Paramjitsing Sahani S/o Sardar Tirathsing Sahani and others. Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A. D. Kasliwal, Advocate for applicant. None for Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (CORAM : V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.) DATE : 27th August, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The applicant is the real brother of Respondent No.1. On 10.10.2003, the Respondent No.1 lodged a report at the Police Station alleging that, the applicant addressed to complainant, abused him and intimidated him. He threatened that, the hands and legs of the Respondent No.1 would be chopped and he will be done to death. The Police thereafter 2 considered the other acts of criminal activities of the applicant, on the basis of their own record and initiated proceedings against him under section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The proceedings were taken cognizance of by the Executive Magistrate and necessary order was passed on 12.10.2004. The applicant preferred a Revision Application and the said order came to be quashed. He thereafter filed the Criminal complaint bearing R.C.C. No.774/2004 for the offence punishable under section 500 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the Respondents. The learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted the Respondents after due trial. 2. Mere fact that, the complaint application was filed by the Respondent NO.1 on 10.10.2003, could not amount to defamation in as much as the explanation 4 of the section 499 of Indian Penal Code is attracted in such case. The Respondent No.1 did not ask for commencement of the proceedings under section 107 or 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was police machinery which decided that, such proceedings would be in fitness of things having regard to various disputes between the parties. The learned Judicial Magistrate noticed that, there were civil and criminal disputes between the brothers interse. The complaint of the Respondent NO.1 was registered as N.C. Case. Considering the reasons ascribed by the learned Magistrate and having regard to the nature of complaint proceedings, the impugned judgment of 3 acquittal does not call for any interference. No case is made out for grant of special leave to appeal under sub section 4 of section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Hence Application as well as Appeal is dismissed. (V. R. KINGAONKAR) JUDGE GAS/cria2104.08