-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 602 OF 2008 IN CRI. APPEAL NO. OF 2008 Samant Ratna Garchar .. Applicant/Appellant. V/s. 1. Yogesh Mehta & Ors. .. Respondents. --- Mr. Mukesh J. Pabari for the Applicant. Smt. Lata C. Wadhawani for the Respondent no.1. Mr. A.S.Shitole, APP for the State. --- CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 13th JANUARY, 2009. DATED : 13th JANUARY, 2009. DATED : 13th JANUARY, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard Mr.Pabari, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Lata Wadhawani, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and the learned APP for the respondent no.5- State. 2. This application is filed for leave to appeal against the order of acquittal of the respondents. The respondents were prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 452, 323, 427, 405 (II) read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. By the impugned judgment -: 2 :- and order, they have been acquitted and therefore, the present application for leave to file appeal is preferred by the applicant. 3. The case of the applicant/complainant is that he is a power of attorney holder of one Trambak Mistry, who is the owner of seven chawls, consisting of 131 rooms. It is alleged that the respondent no.1 has taken the above chawls for development. It is further alleged that on 07.12.1995, the respondent no.1 illegally demolished 10 rooms and when the demolition was obstructed by the applicant, the applicant was assaulted by the respondent/ accused nos. 1 and 3 and the respondent accused no. 5 threatened the applicant to kill him. 4. Sofar as the allegation regarding the demolition of 10 rooms illegally is concerned, there is no merit in asmuch as Trambak Mistry, who has given power of attorney to the present applicant, had already contested the matter by filling various civil suits; however, he could not succeed in getting injunction, restraining the respondent no.1 from demolishing the above chawls. It is not disputed that the original owner Trambak Mistry has compromised the matter with the respondent no.1 and has agreed to withdraw all the criminal cases filed against the respondent no.1. In that view of the matter, -: 3 :- allegations regarding demolition has no merit. 5. So far as the allegations of commission of offence under section 323 and 506 are concerned, it is the case of the applicant that he was beaten by fists and kicks. However, he has not produced any medical evidence in order to corroborate his version. Allegation of threatening by the accused no.5 is also not corroborated. In these facts and circumstances, the learned Magistrate held that the offences under section 323 and 506 are not proved and consequently acquitted the respondents accused. 6. View taken by the learned Magistrate is a possible view and therefore, no interference is required by substituting the said view by another possible view. In the result leave to appeal is refused. Application is dismissed accordingly. (R.V.MORE,J.) .....