1 Appln. 852/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.852 OF 2010 Mr. Mulraj Ratansay Kapadia & Anr. .... Applicants Vs. Suresh Chandra Khandelwal & Anr. .... Respondents Mr. Sunil Ghatge, Advocate for applicants. Mr. Ranvir Shekhawat, Advocate for respondent no.1 Mrs. U.V. Kejariwal, APP for State. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 6th December, 2010 P.C. 1. This application is filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of C.C. 75/SW/2007 pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(II) read with 34 Indian Penal Code filed by respondent no.1. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 27th September 2007 has issued process against the applicant after recording verification of respondent no.1. 2. The challenge to the proceedings is based on three grounds : It is contended that the incident alleged in the complaint is a stale incidence of the year 2004 for the complaint filed in the year 2 Appln. 852/2010 2007. Secondly, that the criminal proceedings are nothing but a counter blast to the civil proceedings between the parties under the Rent Act wherein the petitioners have succeeded in the eviction proceedings filed against respondent no.1. Thirdly that the order of issuance of process could not have been passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate without ordering any enquiry by the Police, particularly in view of the fact that the complaint alleges that on the date and time of the incident, respondent no. 1 was alone in the shop. 3. The learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that the date of the incident mentioned in the complaint as of 19th April 2004 is a typographical error and the correct date is 19th April 2007. He submits that on the very next day i.e. on 20th April 2007, respondent no. 1 had complained of the incident to L.T. Marg Police Station, Mumbai. He has produced copy of the complaint dated 20th April 2007 bearing acknowledgment of receipt by L.T. Marg Police Station. As regards the pendency of the civil proceedings, the same will not have any bearing on the proceedings because the complaint alleges that on the date and time of the incident, the applicants and two persons came to the shop of respondent no.1 at about 9 am. and started abusing him in filthy language. They also manhandled and pushed him around. It is alleged that they demanded that respondent no.1 withdraws the appeal filed by him in the Court of Small Causes. Considering the nature of allegations of abusing and manhandling, it would be 3 Appln. 852/2010 difficult on prima facie view to hold that the complaint is nothing but a counter blast to the civil proceedings. As regards the last contention, it is seen that the order of issuance of process has been passed by the Magistrate after recording statement and verification of respondent no. 1 under Section 200 Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has apparently, prima facie satisfied that there was substance in the complaint and issued the process. Hence, the application is dismissed. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)