1 CRI.REVN.NO.267/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.267/2010 Anil s/o Marotirao Vidyagar - APPLICANT VERSUS Sunita d/o Uttamrao Yeole and others. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.Ravindra S.Shinde, Advocate for Applicant; Mr.PP More, APP for State. Mr.RT Deshmukh, Adv. For Resp.No.2. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 23rd June, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Heard finally. Applicant - Anil Vidyagar filed a complaint being Case No.257/2009 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed against Maroti and one Sunita (respondent no.1 herein). The accusations were from 17th August, 2007 to 23rd January, 2009, persistently threats were exerted to the complainant and extortion amount was demanded on mobile. The complainant/applicant has given mobile details. 2) The learned Judge, by order dated 22nd September, 2009, directed issuance of process 2 CRI.REVN.NO.267/2010 against the accused nos.1 and 2, same was questioned by Sunita in Criminal Revision No. 88/2009. The learned Additional Sessions Judge Beed by order dated 13th September, 2010 allowed the revision. Hence, the complainant/applicant questions legality thereof. 3) Mr.Shinde, learned Counsel for the applicant/complainant, informs that the observation of the learned Sessions Judge that sweeping sentences are used in respect of amount of illegal demand (Khandani) ransom and consequently, there is nothing against the respondent no.1, is based on erroneous observations. According to learned Counsel, it is not in one paragraph, but at two places, there is sweeping reference that such extortion was activated. 4) The theory of extortion relates to mobile contacts, the mobile details do not primarily even connect to the Respondent no.1, it may be with the Respondent no.2 – Maroti, however, the demand or the extortion clause has apparently no decisive bearing, nor it could be prima facie indicative against the female Respondent no.1. The learned Judge found that the allegations in paragraph 6 and onwards against the Respondent no.1, are vague, they do 3 CRI.REVN.NO.267/2010 not inform as to when and at what place, the alleged threats were hurled by Respondent no.1. By status of the Respondent no.1, to be a female, it is difficult to digest that she has become implacable to the complainant and consequently needs fetters of the criminal prosecution. Survey of events illustrate cancellation of issuance of process in RCC No.257/2009 against the Respondent no.1 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Beed, is just. There is nothing to interfere in the impugned order. The revision lacks merit, dismissed. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/