* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2442 OF 2008 W I T H CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 393 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2442 OF 2008 Pradeep Purshottam Pimparkhede ..... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...... Respondents ======= Petitioner present in person. Mr.H.J.Dedhia, APP for respondent/State. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 27TH JANUARY, 2009. P.C. : 1. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.for quashing of the complaint being C.C.No.165/PW/2006 filed at the instance of Azad Maidan Police Station and pending in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, * 2 * Esplanade, Mumbai under Section 506(II), 507 and 504 IPC alleging that the petitioner has threatened over telephone the complainant who then was the Assistant Director (Public Prosecutions) and Public Prosecutor, Brihan Mumbai and his staff members in the office. The threats to the staff members were given over office telephone. The Assistant Director (Public Prosecutions) was called on his mobile number and threatened with words “I have got pistol for you and it is my solitary wish to kill you”. 2. The petitioner submits that there is delay in filing of the complaint after the alleged incident. He draws my attention to the letter dated 22nd September, 2005 which has set the police action in motion. At para-3 of the letter, it is stated that on 21st September, 2005 between 2.20 p.m. to 4.30 p.m the petitioner made 25 calls on the office number 22620156 and abused and threatened one, Smt.Sawant. It is further alleged at para-4, that on the same date at about 7.00 p.m., he gave a call to the Assistant Director (Public Prosecutions) to give threat as narrated above. The petitioner points out that for the threats allegedly given on 21st September 2005, the complaint came to be filed only on 22nd September, 2005. This according to him would indicate that neither the staff nor the Assistant Director (Public * 3 * Prosecutions) had felt threatened. There can be no prejudice caused to the petitioner on account of the delay. Also, it cannot be inferred from the delay that the threats had not affected the recipients. Further, it is open for the petitioner to agitate the contention before the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, at the time of trial. The petitioner's next argument is that no permission of the court was taken for prosecuting him, though the complaint made is under Section 506, 504 IPC which are both non-cognisable offences. As rightly submitted by the learned APP, the ingredients of Section 506(II) IPC of giving threats to kill, having been made out in the complaint, no permission of the court is required to prosecute the petitioner. The third contention is that the material to prosecute him is not sufficient because the police have not recorded the statement of another attendant of the public telephone booth. The record shows that the police had recorded the statement of one Ashok Awhad, the owner of the telephone booth from where the petitioner is alleged to have made the telephone calls. His telephone booth as per the statement is situate near the residence of the petitioner. This fact is not disputed by the petitioner. He however submits that the statement merely refers to his visit to the telephone booth and of making a * 4 * call to some person. Statement of Ashok Awhad, copy of which is annexed to the petition shows that Ashok Awhad has given the time of the telephone call and the number to which the call had been made. In that circumstance, the police in their own wisdom must have felt that no further statement of any other person is required to be recorded. 3. The petitioner has not made out any case for quashing of the complaint filed against him. The petition is hereby dismissed. With the dismissal of the petition, Civil Application No. 393 of 2008 also does not survive. The same is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. [JUDGE]