-1- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.946 OF WRIT PETITION NO.946 OF WRIT PETITION NO.946 OF 2006 2006 2006 ...................................................... OFFICE NOTES, OFFICE MEMORANDA OF CORAM, COURT’S OR APPEARANCES, COURT’S JUDGE’S ORDER ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS AND REGISTRAR’S ORDERS ...................................................... Ms. Leela D. Lalu, for the Petitioner. Mr. A.S. Shitole, APP, for Respondent No.6. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : AUGUST 21, 2006. : AUGUST 21, 2006. : AUGUST 21, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Advocate appearing for the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner is the complainant who filed private complaint alleging commission of offence under Section 458, 341, 352, 365, 506, 511 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The private complaint was filed in the year 1998. 3. The learned Magistrate issued -2- process only against accused nos.2 to 5 for the offences punishable under Section 342,352, 365, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The order passed by the learned Magistrate has been confirmed by the Sessions Court in Revision. 4. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that the process ought to have been issued for offence of house breaking and order issuing process could not have been denied only on the ground that there was a gross delay in filing complaint. She submitted that the Petitioner was continuously approaching various authorities till the date on which complaint was filed. She submitted that prima-facie case was made out for issuing process for all the offences alleged in complaint. She submitted that -3- process ought to have been issued even as against the accused No.1. She placed reliance on order passed by the learned City Civil Court on 15th February 1979. 5. I have considered the submissions. The learned Magistrate declined to issue process on the basis of the incident of 1978 in a complaint filed in the year 1998. However, in respect of the incident which took place in the year 1998, the process has been ordered to be issued. The learned Judge has not issued process as against accused No.1 after considering the statement of the Petitioner recorded by the Enquiry Officer in which the Petitioner has not ascribed any role to the accused No.1 in the incident of 25th August 1998. -4- 6. Considering the observations made by the Courts below, no case is made out for entertaining the Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 7. Petition is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE