* 1 * FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 109 OF 2009 [Sunil Kumar Nandpal Lohriya & Ors. V/s.Hamid Mussa Shaikh & Ors.] W I T H CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 110 OF 2009 [Sunil Kumar Nandpal Lohriya & Ors. V/s.Yunus R.Mujjawar & Ors.] ___________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, apperances, Court's orders or Court's or Judge's orders directions and Registrar's orders ________________________________________________________________ _ Mr.M.H.Ahooja,adv.for petitioners. Mr. V.M.Thorat with Mr.Vinod Gupta,adv.for respondent no.1. Mrs.A.A.Mane, APP for respondent in W.P. No.109 of 2009. Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh, APP for respondent in W.P.No.110 of 2009. Coram: Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Dated: 28 th January, 2009. P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These petitions are filed for setting aside and quashing the order in Summary criminal Case No. * 2 * 2944 of 2008 and Regular Criminal Case No. 429 of 2008 issuing summons to the petitioners under Section 500 read with Section 34 of IPC. The petitioners also pray for interim order of stay of the said proceedings. Copy of the complaint filed by the respondent is annexed at Exhibit-I to the petitions. It appears that disputes had arisen between the petitioners and the respondents in connection with a business transaction. The petitioners issued public notices in Vashi Times and Aajchi Navi Mumbai under the caption “public notice in the interest of public” on the dates April 19 to 25th 2008 and 21st April, 2008 to 27th April, 2008 respectively. In the said notices, the respondent is described as a cheater. Thereafter, on 5th and 11th May * 3 * 2008 in Vashi Times and on 3rd and 11th May 2008 in Aajchi Navi Mumbai weekly newspapers the petitioners published notice informing the public at large that the respondents had come to their office and apologized. He is also stated to have sent letter dated 2nd May 2008 of apology to petitioner no.1. In the complaint, the respondent alleges that the said letter is a forged and fabricated document. He claims that no such letter has been sent by him and publication of such an item has harmed his reputation. Perusal of the complaint shows that the same make out a prima-facie case. Therefore, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was correct in issuing summons to the petitioners. There is no infirmity in the order. Hence, the petitions * 4 * are hereby dismissed. [JUDGE]