( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.87 OF 2007 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.87 OF 2007 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.87 OF 2007 Allarakha Dawood Madiya @ Bholu .. Applicant. Versus Nisar Ali Mohmmed Johari & Anr. .. Respondents. Mr.Prakash Naik for the applicant. Ms.Alpa Jhaveri, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 5th June, 2008. DATED : 5th June, 2008. DATED : 5th June, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Mr.Naik for the applicant. Mr.Saste, learned A.P.P. for the State. None for respondent No.1. 2. I have heard learned Advocate Mr.Naik for applicant, who is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned 2nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mazgaon, Mumbai dated 30.11.2005 in Notice No.98/Misc./2005 as also the order passed by the learned 1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree in Criminal Appeal No.210 of 2006. The present applicant was prosecuted under Sections 504 & 506 of the I.P.C. in C.C.No.153/PW/2004. The applicant was acquitted on merits and thereafter the present applicant filed proceedings No.98/Misc./2005 invoking the provisions of Section 250 of Cr.P.C. so as to have action against respondent No.1 under Section 182 and 211 of the I.P.C. The two Courts below have dismissed the application and appeal filed by the ( 2 ) applicant respectively. 3. I have heard learned Advocate Mr.Naik appearing on behalf of the applicant. I have perused the record. The submission of learned Advocate Mr.Naik that in the beginning, the respondent No.1 had filed complaint in the concerned police station alleging that he had received telephone calls by unknown person and thereafter a specific complaint came to be filed levelling allegations against the applicant is something which has put up a conflicting case and that should have been construed by the Courts to say that a patently false complaint came to be filed by the respondent No.1 against the applicant so as to commit offences punishable under Sections 182 and 211 of the I.P.C. 4. This argument of learned Advocate Mr.Naik cannot be accepted on consideration of the issues involved in the present proceedings. 5. The burden upon the applicant with reference to the mensrea in Sections 182 and 211 was of heavy and that was with reference to the resondent No.1 having a specific knowledge that the respondent No.1 had a reason to believe that the complaint which he proposes to file is patently false. The applicant had ( 3 ) not been able to bring home this mensrea. In any case, reasons given by the Courts below are well settled and no interference is required in the impugned orders and that the application is required to be rejected. Hence the order :- a) Application is rejected. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)