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 WRIT PETITION No.766 OF 2008 Mr Vimal Rai Shah .. Petitioner. Vs. Mr Sanjay Prabash Purohit & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr R. M. Patne h/f Smt Rewa Nargolkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr A. N. Maniyar, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Ms P. P. Shinde, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. DATED : 2nd April,2009. DATED : 2nd April,2009. DATED : 2nd April,2009. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order of the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, dated 8th August, 2007. By the impugned order the learned Sessions Judge upheld the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,Khadki, Pune of issuance of process against the petitioner-accused in Regular Criminal Complaint No. 20 of 2007, filed by the original complainant (respondent No.1) against the accused-petitioner for the offence punishable under section 497 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that the accused had adulterous relations with his wife and both are working in the same software company at Pune. 2. Alongwith the said complaint a voluminous record of exchange of e-mails was produced before the learned Magistrate and it appears that mainly on the strength of contents of such e-mail record, coupled with other allegations mentioned in the complaint, process came to be issued against the present petitioner-accused. 3. As mentioned above, the said process though challenged in Criminal Revision Application, it was up held by an order dated 14.5.2007. The said order of revisional Court is challenged in the present writ petition. 4. Heard the rival submissions at length. 5. Main grievance of the argument on behalf of the petitioner is that there is possibility of fabrication of such record regarding e-mail correspondence and only on ( 3 ) that basis it cannot be construed that there was such an intimate relationship between the accused and the wife of the complainant. It is further argued that in order to harass the accused and to extract money from him, as he is in the employment of software company in U.K., present complaint came to be filed in which process was issued and the same has been challenged. 6. As against above arguments, it is submitted on behalf of respondent no.1-original complainant that the aspect as to authenticity or otherwise of the e-mail correspondence cannot be looked at this stage and it is the matter of evidence before the Trial Court. Further it is pointed out to this Court that there is delay of about 281 days in filing the present writ petition, challenging the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune which was passed on 8th August, 2007, whereas the present writ petition came to be filed on 14th March, 2008. ( 4 ) 7. It is factual position that the Trial Court as well as first Revisional Court have consistently held as to prima facie material for issuance of process. On going through the voluminous exchange of e-mail per se it can be ascertained that it is subject of free intimate relations between the accused and wife of the complainant. Further more, it is a factual position that about six days prior to the lodging of the complaint there was divorce proceeding initiated by the complainant before Pune Court against his wife alleging her adulterous relations with the present accused. 8. Considering the import of the provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and as to powers of this Court in the writ jurisdiction there is nothing to interfere with the order which is impugned in the present matter. 9. Submissions on behalf of the accused can be suitably dealt with when the matter will be put to trial and it will be the matter of ( 5 ) evidence as to authenticity or otherwise of the e-mail correspondence. 10. In the result, writ petition is dismissed and disposed of. 11. If any interim orders are already passed, the same shall stand vacated. 12. On request of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the effect of this order is stayed for a period of two weeks from today. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.)