( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2715 OF 2009 Dr. Sau. Suniti Dhananjay Bendre APPLICANT VERSUS Prof. Dharma s/o Fakira Patil and another. RESPONDENTS .... Mr. Prasanna M. Kutti, advocate for the applicant. Mr. D.S. Bagul, advocate for the respondent No.1. Smt. B.R. Khekale, APP for the respondent No. 2/State. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 8th September, 2010] PER COURT : 1. This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgement of acquittal, rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Jalgaon in S.C.C. No. 1309/2001. 2. It is not necessary to elaborately set out the rival contentions and the facts which gave rise to the criminal prosecution of the respondent No.1. Suffice it to say that the applicant is a Gynecologist and is practicing at Jalgaon and Pachora. The respondent No. 1 claims himself to be the President of Consumers Service Organisation. He gave several ( 2 ) news publications. They were published in various newspapers. The newspaper items indicated that there were various complaints about the malpractices adopted by the applicant, her improper behaviour with the patients and conducting the practice unethically. 3. The applicant filed private complaint for offence punishable under section 500 of the I.P. Code alleging that she was unnecessarily defamed due to the said publications. The trial Court held that the publications were based on complaints which were received by the Consumer Service Organisation of which the respondent No. 1 is the President. The trial Court held that though the R.M.O. of the hospital at Pachora is not duly qualified and the nurses by name Khatunbi and Usha Sonar are not duly qualified, yet, they were allowed to work in the said hospital at Pachora. It is also noticed by the trial Court that though the applicant was not M.D., yet, she misrepresented herself as such in the publications of the advertisements in certain newspaper. 4. It appears that the applicant is M.B.B.S. and D.G.O. and, therefore, is duly qualified to practice as Gynecologist. The letter correspondence between the parties prima facie ( 3 ) shows that subtle attempt was made by the respondent No. 1 to settle the issue amicably (?) with the applicant. The question involved is whether the publications were issued by the respondent No. 1 in the public interest or that his intention was to malign image of the applicant. It appears that the applicant had filed a civil Suit for recovery of compensation and damages which is partly decreed by the civil Court. An appeal is preferred by the respondent No.1 against such decree. In the teeth of findings of the civil Court, it will have to be said that there exists a prima facie case to entertain the appeal against the order of acquittal. 5. Considering the foregoing reasons, leave to appeal is granted. The application is allowed. Mr. Bagul waives service for the respondent No.1 and, therefore, no action under section 390 of the Criminal Procedure Code is called for. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln2715-2009 ( 4 )