1 appln3273-10.sxw jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3273 OF 2010 Priya Vikas Agarwal .. Applicant Vs. Anita Ashok jadhav and others ..Respondents Mr. P. G. Karande for the applicant Mr. Yadunath Chaudhari a/w Mr. Kunal Cheema for respondent No.1 Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the State CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 4 th March, 2011 P. C. 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Karande, for the applicant, Mr. Chaudhari for respondent No.1 and Mr. More, APP for the State. 2. By consent of the parties, the present application has been fixed for hearing finally at the stage of admission. Considering the earlier hearings given by this Court on 2/3 occasions, hearing is arranged in the same line. In view of the earlier orders passed on 30 th July, 2010, 13thSeptember, 2010 and also the last order passed by this Court dated 28 th February, 2011, no need to reproduce the facts of the present case in detail. Applicant is the original accused and the Respondent No.1 is the original complainant. The incident involves an accident of dash to the son of the applicant by a vehicle of original complainant while they were crossing road and verbal altercations followed thereafter, has been admitted by them with regrets. 2 appln3273-10.sxw 3. This application impugns the Criminal proceedings being CC No.998/PS/s008 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 22 nd court, Andheri, arising out of Complaint No. 2517/2006 and summons came to be issued to the applicant. 4. It is the case of the applicant that she had also reported the incident by way of complaint against respondent No.1 who is original complainant in the aforesaid criminal case, to the police station but the same was not even recorded as N.C. Complaint, however, the complainant’s report was registered by the same police station under Sections 323, 427 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code because she happens to be the wife of sitting MLA. According to the applicant, no equal treatment was given to her by the police station and nothing serious had happened. Despite this, she is now forced to face the prosecution which is uncalled for, baseless and it was a trifle issue stated under section 95 of I.P.C. or even short of an “affray” which is an offence under Section 159 punishable under Section160 of the I.P.C. which reads thus: “95. Act of 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 on such harm. 159. Affray._ When two or more persons, by fighting in a public place disturb the public place, they are said to “commit an affray. 3 appln3273-10.sxw 160. Punishment for committing affray._ Whoever commits an affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees, or with both.” 5. After going through the reply filed by the complainant in this application so also the grounds made in the application and the F.I.R. lodged in this case, it is seen that the offence would, at the most, fall under Section 95 of the I.P.C. assuming that there is some wrong on the part of the applicant. It is seen that the complaint is silent about the actual damage or loss and no such damage or loss can be assumed when it is not stated. In an offence of mischief punishable under section 427 I.P.C. this material fact is required to be stated. Further, there is no evidence to show any breach of peace and that there was any intention to provoke each other, but whatever reported were the exchanges words by mouth after the said incident of dash given by the complainant’s car to the applicant’s son when they were crossing the road. The total incident cannot be said to be act of omission or commission punishable under the law and certainly, what was followed after the incident is the most natural reactions shown by both the parties but that does not give rise to any offence punishable under the penal code and the same is observed by me in my earlier order dated 28 th February, 2011. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no substance in allowing 4 appln3273-10.sxw the prosecution to go on, which would certainly not only prejudicial to the applicant but also to the complainant, though she has not consented to this quashing proceedings. 6. The respondents did not dispute the jurisdiction of this Court for invoking inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 which meant only to do the criminal justice in law. So in order to meet the ends of justice, the application is allowed. 7. The Criminal proceedings being C.C. No. 988/PS/2008 pending on the files of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 22 nd Court, Andheri, Mumbai arising out of N.C. Complaint No.2517 of 2006 registered at Juhu Police Station Mumbai, so also the order dated 20.11.2006 passed by learned Magistrate u/s 155(2) of Cr.P.C. are quashed and set aside. 8. Application is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. 9. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order. 10. Inform the concerned Police station accordingly. (N. D. DESHPANDE, J.)