(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4608 OF 2006. Smt. Harjeet Kaur. ..Applicant. Versus Versus Versus Ahmed Babajan Shaikh & 2 Ors. ..Respondents. .... Mrs.Harjeet Kaur, in-person, Applicant. Mr.Y.S. Shinde, APP for Respondent-State. Mr. Saeed Aktar for Respondents No.1 & 2. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 26th June, 2008. DATED : 26th June, 2008. DATED : 26th June, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the applicant-original complainant, who appears in person, the learned Advocate for respondents-original accused and learned APP for the State. Perused the judgment and order and the evidence produced by the complainant. 2. The applicant-original complainant who has appeared in person, has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgement and order dated 7th October 2006, passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai, in case no.1551/SS/2005. By the said judgement and order, the learned Magistrate acquitted the (2) respondents-original accused nos.1 & 2 of the offences under section 504 and 506 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. 3. The case of the complainant is that the accused persons are their landlords. Since long, there is litigation pending in respect of recovery of rented premises between the accused and the family of the complainant. The case of the complainant is that, on 11.11.1992, she had gone alongwith her brother to attend the matter relating to their eviction before the competent authority in the premises of MHADA at Bandra. The accused were also present during the hearing. After the hearing was over, the complainant came downstairs. At that time, both the accused abused her in filthy language and also threatened the complainant and her brother. Thereafter, the complainant went to Kherwadi Police Station and lodged complaint. The said complaint was treated as N.C. Thereafter, the complaint was filed by her. 4. The complainant has only examined herself in support of the case, she has not examined her brother. During her evidence, she has not stated (3) the abuses uttered by the accused persons, nor the exact words relating to threats given by the accused persons to her. It is seen that she has not specified the abuses either in her complaint or in the evidence before the court. The learned Magistrate has rightly held that the case of the complainant that the accused gave her abuses or threats, is not proved. 5. It is the case of the complainant that she was accompanied by her brother. However, the brother has not been examined. The complainant also admitted that there were other many persons present at the time of incident, however no person has been examined. 6. The accused persons had filed a complaint against the applicant before the Bar Council relating to the incident which occured on 11.11.1992. On perusal of the order in the said case, it is seen that the incident had not occured in MHADA building, but it had occured in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court at Bandra. In the cross-examination, the present applicant has stated that on 11.11.1992, she was attending the court with her mother. Thus, it is seen that (4) there is discrepancy regarding the place where the incident actually took place. Moreover, there is no reference to the presence of the brother and instead the present applicant in her evidence in the Bar Council proceedings has stated that she was accompanied by her mother. These facts also raise doubt in the mind about the case of the complainant. 7. Moreover, it is the case of the complainant that immediately after the incident, she had gone to the police station and she has lodged a N.C. at Kherwadi Police Station. However, copy of N.C. has not been produced by the complainant. 8. The learned Magistrate has taken into account all the above aspects and thereafter, he has acquitted the respondents. Looking to the above facts, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no inference is called for. The application for leave to file appeal is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)