1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.10 OF 2010 Priyesh Bheda .... Applicant. v/s Vijaya Nadar & Ors. .... Respondents. Applicant in person, present. Mrs. M.R. Tidake, APP for the State. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 14th September, 2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard the applicant in person. He has filed this Revision Application being aggrieved by the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 35th Court, C.S.T., Mumbai. By the said order, the protest application filed by the applicant was partly allowed and the process was issued against accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under sections 324, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts are as under:- 3. A complaint was lodged by the applicant against one 2 Smt. Vijaya Nadar and her husband Shri Jawahar Nadar on 15/11/2007 in which he alleged that Respondent nos. 1 and 2 attacked him and assaulted him and took away his mobile phone. According to the applicant, no action was taken on the FIR and, therefore, he filed complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 35th Court in which an order was passed under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the police were directed to investigate into the said matter. The police filed a report and stated therein that the offence alleged against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was non- cognizable offence. The learned Magistrate, however, asked the police to carry out further investigation under section 173 sub-clause (8) of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the police report directing that summons be issued against the Respondents. Thereafter, the applicant filed an application seeking direction from the Magistrate that process be issued against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 327, 392, 341, 506 (ii) read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and not only under section 323, 504 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The learned Magistrate has passed a reasoned order and has also taken into consideration the medical papers and certificates placed on record and observed that there was only minor abrasion on the face of the complainant, the applicant herein and the nature of injury sustained by him was simple and, therefore, the offence under section 324 3 was attracted. The learned Magistrate has also observed that a counter complaint was initially filed by Respondent No.1 Smt. Vijaya Nadar vide C.R. No.23/08 against the applicant herein for the offence punishable under sections 420, 465, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, there was possibility of the applicant filing the said application. 5. It is submitted that the complaint filed by the Respondent No.1 had been stayed by this Court and the application for quashing is still pending. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate has erred in relying on the said pending complaint for the purpose of dismissing the application of the applicant. He also relied upon the following Judgments to canvas a proposition that while rejecting the application under section 203, the Court has to give sound reasons:- (1) 1972 SCC (3) 414 [D.N. Bhattacharjee & Ors vs. State of West Bengal & Anr] (2) ILR 1994 KAR 2418 [Girdharilal vs. Pratap Rai Mehta] (3) (1997) 89 ComCas 732 Mad, 1997(1) CTS 382 [Assistant Registrar of Companeis vs. Premier Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.] 4 6. After having heard the the applicant in person at length, in my view, no case is made out for interfering with the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. In the present case, initially, a direction was given by the Magistrate to the police to investigate into the case and submit a report under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The police filed “C” Summary Report. Against this order, a protest application was filed and, thereafter, the learned Magistrate was pleased to direct the police to investigate further under section 173 sub-clause (8) of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, again, a detailed report was tendered by the police and, thereafter, again, protest application was filed on the said report and after weighing the entire record, the learned Magistrate was pleased to issue process under section 324, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. The learned Magistrate has given cogent reasons why offence under section 327, 341, 392 and 506(2) was not made out by the complainant. The said order is a reasoned order and, in my view, no case is made out by the applicant for issuance of process under sections 327, 341 392 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. There cannot be any dispute regarding the ratio of the judgments on which the reliance is placed by the applicant. The learned Magistrate has given cogent and sound reasons for not accepting the contention of the applicant. Hence, no case is made out for interfering with the said order while exercising revisional 5 jurisdiction of this Court under section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 8. Criminal Revision Application is accordingly dismissed. (V.M. KANADE, J.)