1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2506 OF 2009 Earnest George Lockwood : Petitioner (Orig. Accused) V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. : Respondent .... Mr.Haresh Jagtiani, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Siddhesh Bhole i/b. Mr.Hitesh Dabhi for the petitioner. Mrs.R.V. Newton, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 29, 2009. P.C.: 1. This petition was initially made for setting aside the impugned order dated 8.9.2009 by which the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 22nd Court, Andheri, Mumbai, rejected the undertaking tendered on behalf of the petitioner Earnest George Lockwood by Dr.Jonathan W.G. Wills who had sought to assure the Court of the character of the petitioner and his trustworthiness and made a specific statement that there would be no problem in having the petitioner in India and he should be allowed to leave India. Subsequently, the petitioner has applied for quashing and setting aside Case No.1796/PW/2009 pending 2 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate’s 22nd Court, Andheri, inter alia, on the ground of de minimis principles embodied in section 95 of the Indian Penal code. 2. The incident in respect of which prosecution was launched took place at Sahar International Airport on 7.7.2009 wherein the petitioner is said to have assaulted an Immigration Officer upon the some dispute pertaining to off-loading the petitioner from a flight which he was due to take to England. The petitioner is a diver by profession and apparently, visits India often in relation to his work since the year 1985 for carrying on diving which is essentially to the development of India’s off-shore oil and gas resources. On one of the trips on his way back, apparently, he was off-loaded on the ground of “Gate no Show”. According to the petitioner, he is deaf in one ear, as a result of his occupation and he could not hear the announcement. He was, therefore, agitated and in those circumstances, a minor altercation ensued between the Immigration Officer and the petitioner. There were admittedly no injuries on the Officer and the attempt to assault is denied by the petitioner. However, the Immigration Officer was constrained to lodge a prosecution against the petitioner from which the present proceedings arise. During the course of hearing, the petitioner tendered an unconditional apology to the Immigration Officer in which he stated that the unfortunate incident arose 3 out of his deafness and misunderstanding the situation, coupled with his panic about missing his flight. It is further stated that he had been at off- shore for 83 days in a highly stressful situation and that he cannot excuse his bad behaviour and feels deeply remorseful. The Immigration Officer has received this apology and has appeared before this Court and stated that he has no personal grudge against the petitioner and he only did his duty by reporting the incident to the police. He has, however, stated that he did not receive any injuries as a result of the incident. He accepted the apology tendered by the petitioner and does not wish to say anything about the prosecution. The Investigating Officer has stated that the charge-sheet has been filed in Court and the matter is pending prosecution. He has further stated that there is no injury to the Immigration Officer and apparently there was some heated exchange between these two people. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it appears that the incident though offensive did not result in any real harm to the Immigration Officer or to any other passenger nearby. It appears that neither the petitioner nor the Immigration Officer was at fault nor did they harbour any ill-will before, during or after the incident against each other. The petitioner has apologized to the Immigration Officer, who has stated that he has accepted the apology and does not bear any grudge against the petitioner. In the circumstances, it appears that the incident cannot be termed as an offence by reason of section 95 of the 4 I.P.C. Section 95 of the I.P.C. reads as under:- “95. Act causing slight harm.-- Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.” Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the interest of justice, I am of view that the prosecution deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. Accordingly, the Criminal Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a-i) which reads as follows:- “(a-i) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the Case No.1796/PW/2009 pending before the ld. M.M., 22nd Court, Andheri.” Order accordingly. S.A. BOBDE, J.