1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1462 O 2009 (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 (AGAINST THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL) The State of Maharashtra .....Applicant/Orig.Resp. vs. Pradip Vasudeo Patil .....Respondent/Orig.Accd. -------- Mr.Y.S.Shinde, Advocate for applicant. Mr.R.P.Javanjal,Advocate for respondent. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 31st July, 2009 PC :- 1. Heard counsels for both sides. 2. This application is filed for leave to file appeal to challenge the order dated 3rd December, 2008 passed by the Sessions Court, Sewree in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2005. The State had prosecuted the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 354 of IPC on the complaint of one Swati Chitale. By the judgment and order dated 22nd December, 2004 the learned Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court, Dadar convicted the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and sentenced him till rising of the court and pay fine of Rs. 2 5,000/-. The respondent preferred an appeal against the order which was allowed by the Sessions court vide judgment and order dated 3rd December, 2008. By that order, the respondent was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. Hence, the present application by the State. 3. Perused the judgment of the trial court and the lower appellate court. I am satisfied that the observations of the lower appellate court are fair and probable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Mr.Javanjal, learned counsel for the respondent points that an identical case filed by the complainant was compromised by her earlier. He submits that the two cases filed under Section 354 IPC have infact been at the instance of Mr.Sharad Upadhyay with whom the respondent had several disputes. There were also proceedings filed between the two. Mr.Sharad Upadhyay and the respondent had arrived at a Memorandum of Understanding dated 24th May, 2002 by which it was agreed by them that they will withdraw all the proceedings filed against each other and/or compound the same. The Memorandum of Understanding contains a list of 8 cases. The list includes the two cases filed by the complainant including the present case. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, leave to appeal is refused. The application is rejected and the appeal is dismissed. 3 (Smt.R.P. SondurBaldota,J.)