* 1 * W.P. 2320.2010 9.11.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2320 OF 2010 Shri. Anant Vitthal Nikam and anr. ..... Petitioners V/S. 1. The State of Maharashtra (at the instance of Nigdi Police Station) & anr. ..... Respondents * * * * * * Mr. Abhaykumar Apte, Advocate for the petitioners. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for State. CORAM :- SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. 9 November, 2011. P.C. : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard the learned counsel for respective parties. 3. This writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.” for “ short) is directed against the order dated 18th June, 2007 passed in Criminal Case No. 3508 of 2007 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pimpri, Pune and the order passed by the Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 1036 of 2008. * 2 * W.P. 2320.2010 9.11.2011 4. The petitioners are accused nos.2 and 3 in Criminal Case No. 2508 of 2007. Respondent no.2, the complainant alongwith her son, Mahendra runs a restaurant by name Hotel Ranmala’ at Chinchwadgaon, Pune. She alleges in the complaint ‘ that on 18th January, 2007 at about 11.30 p.m. the petitioners alongwith another accused, one Atul Gogare and some unknown persons all police officers went to her restaurant and had dinner. There was some quarrel between the petitioners, their co-accused and Mahendra over the payment of bill. It is alleged that petitioners and their companions were under the influence of alcohol. After the quarrel, they abused respondent no.2 and Mahendra in filthy language. Therefore, respondent no.2 went alongwith her son, Mahendra to Nigdi Police Station and lodged a complaint. Since the petitioners belonged to police department, the officers at Nigdi Police Station refused to accept the complaint of respondent no.2. She then tried to call the police authorities over the emergency phone number 100. Then, the police instead of recording a cognizable complaint, recorded a non-cognizable complaint vide C.R. No. 130 of 2007 under Sections 504, 506 Indian Penal Code against one of the accused persons i.e. Atul Gogare and deliberately omitted the petitioners herein. On the next day i.e. 19th January, 2007 the petitioners threatened respondent no.2 and her son that they will be falsely implicated in a frivolous case. On the same day, Atul Gogare lodged a complaint against respondent no.2 and her son alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(x) of the Prevention of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 7(1)(b) of the Civil * 3 * W.P. 2320.2010 9.11.2011 Rights Protection Act vide C.R. No. 3015 of 21007. It is the further allegation of respondent no.2 that since the police authorities did not take appropriate action, despite all the efforts made by her she filed a private complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pimpri, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 509 Indian Penal Code. On 18th June, 2007 the learned Magistrate issued process against the petitioners and Atul Gogare under Sections 504, 509, 509 Indian Penal code and Section 85 of the Bombay Prohibition Act. On 17th August, 2007 the case came to be committed for trial to the Sessions Court. It has been registered as Sessions Case No. 13 of 2007. The petitioners had challenged the order of issuance of process against them by filing Criminal Revision Application No. 1036 of 2006 in the Court of Sessions. The Revision came to be dismissed by the order dated 6th November, 2009. 5. Mr. Apte, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the order of issuance of process has been passed by the learned Magistrate without application of judicial mind and without going through the contents of the complaint. He submits that the learned Magistrate ought to have appreciated that the complaint as filed does not attribute any specific role to the petitioners and that the petitioners had merely accompanied accused, Gogare to the restaurant of respondent no.2. He also submits that the learned Magistrate could not have issued process under Section 85 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 without there being a report from the Medical Officer of the Civil Hospital about the alcoholic content of required percentage in the blood of the petitioners. * 4 * W.P. 2320.2010 9.11.2011 6. Perusal of the complaint, shows that there is no substance in the contention that there is no specific role in the incident attributed to the petitioners. There are specific allegations made against the petitioners that they had abused respondent no.2 and her son and they had also abused their authority as police officers. In that circumstance, the learned Magistrate was right in issuing process against the petitioners and the learned Sessions Judge was right in rejecting the Criminal Revision Application. As regards the contention relating to issuance of process under Section 85 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, the complaint alleges that the petitioners and their companions were under the influence of alcohol which is sufficient for issuance of process. Any report from Medical Officer of Civil Hospital regarding the extent of content of alcohol in the blood of the petitioners would only be an evidence to establish the allegation of the petitioners being under the influence of alcohol. As has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge, the allegations made in the complaint indeed depict a sordid picture. I find neither any illegality nor perversity in the orders impugned in the petition. Hence the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]