1 WP.1628-2011.sxw acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITIOIN NO. 1628 OF 2011 Kamlesh R. Gupta & Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.. ..Respondents. ----- Mr. S.V. Marwadi, i/b Mrs. Mallika Ingale, for the Petitioners. Mr. H.J. Dedhia, A.P.P. for the State. ---- CORAM: M.L. TAHALIYANI, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 28, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Marwadi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Dedhia, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Perused the impugned order. The petitioners are aggrieved by the show cause notice issued by the Special Executive Magistrate, Malvani Division, Mumbai under Section 111 of Cr. P.C. and Summons issued under Section 113 of Cr. P.C. 2 WP.1628-2011.sxw 3. The proceedings against the petitioners are initiated on the basis of allegations that they had extended threats to Mehul, Dharmesh and others on telephone. Apart from the said telephonic threats, there is one NC allegedly registered against the petitioners vide NC No.255/2011 under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. In the said NC No.255/2011, Raju Lavre is the complainant. He was allegedly assaulted by the petitioner- Kamlesh Gupta and his alleged associates. 4. After having carefully examined the show cause notice and the summons and after having heard the learned A.P.P., it is absolutely clear that there is no material on record at all of any nature to show that the alleged phone call was made by either of the petitioners. No material has been collected by the Police in the nature of details of subscriber and call data record to indicate that phone calls were made by either of the petitioners. Therefore, in my view no proceedings under Section 107 read with Section 111 could be initiated on the basis of such material. 5. So far as NC No.255 is concerned, it is also admitted position that the aggrieved person/victim had not filed any criminal complaint 3 WP.1628-2011.sxw before the competent Magistrate who could take cognizance of non- cognizable offence. The proper course in the case for the complainant was to file the complaint. He could not use the Police machinery to settle the score with opponent. In my considered opinion, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners cannot be sustained. It is gross abuse of process of law.h The proceedings need to be quashed. Hence, the petition is allowed. The proceedings pending before the Executive Magistrate vide Chapter Case No.39 of 2011 against the petitioner stands quashed. 6. Criminal Writ Petition No.1628 of 2011 is accordingly disposed of. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.)