1 CR.APL NO.199/2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 915. APPLN/199/2011 AMARIDEVI HABATARAM SOLANKI [Criminal] V/S THE STATE OF MAHRASHTRA AND ANR In APPLN/4636/2010 -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. D.R.Irale Patil, Adv., for the applicant. Mr.V.D.Salunke, Adv., for respondent no.2. Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:9-3-2011 1. Heard Mr.D.R.Irale Patil and Mr. V.D.Salunke, Counsel for respective parties extensively. 2. The applicant has urged to cancel or recall the bail granted in Criminal Application No. 4636/2010 to respondent no.2 dt. 18.11.2010. The ground for such move is, taking advantage of bail, respondent no.2 has opened the shop, carrying business activities. The family members of the deceased Habatram are ousted without providing their share in the 2 CR.APL NO.199/2011 business at the city of Tuljapur. Respondent no.2 is exerting threats to the applicant and her family members, not to enter in Tuljapur else, their position would be like Habatram. Consequently, she resides at Mumbai. On 3rd Dec., 2010, the applicant and her family members approached Local Police at Tuljapur to register report against respondent no.2, who exerted threats and desired desisting the applicant from entering Tuljapur. 3. The above contentions of the applicant herein of threat perception, though cannot be ruled out, however, they more lean to be illusory in nature and leaping to have a recourse to settle other scores, precisely, the controversy over shop premises. This Court is not required to dwell upon and ponder to adjudicate rights of the applicant or her husband Habatram vis-a-vis respondent no.2. Care to be taken by the competent Court. The threat perception, without an iota of factual matrix, by itself, could not enure to seek 3 CR.APL NO.199/2011 cancellation and recalling of the order dt.18.11.2010, when no situation as is required in terms of Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. is surfacing. There is no overt act to suggest that accused/respondent have threatened the witnesses or the applicant in particular. If the applicant faces any such action, Police will take its own course and Police may thereafter refer the matter, seeking cancellation as there could be breach of the orders of this Court. For the present, fear nursed by the applicant herein has no consequence to recall and cancel the orders dt. 18.11.2010. 4. Learned Counsel representing the accused/respondent no.2 has raised objection to maintainability of the present petition as the applicant herein could not be branded as complainant. I do not see such objection to be legally maintainable as applicant being aggrieved person, she lost her husband, any obliteration in the terms is bound to make her to 4 CR.APL NO.199/2011 approach this Court or competent Court. With the above clarification, application is dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE AGP/199-11crapl