1 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Criminal Revision Application No.238 of 2008 Shri Karim Najaralibhai Wadhwani .. .. Applicant (Orig. Accused) v/s. 1.State of Mah. & ors. .. .. Respondents (Orig.complainants) Mr.Shrishil Sakhare for Applicant. Mr.Mandar Soman i/by Mr.T.D.Deshmukh for Res.Nos.2 & 3. Mrs.R.V. Newston, APP for State. ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. Dated : 13th November 2009 P.C. : 1.The initial prosecution was lodged by Respondent No.2 herein against the Applicant, inter alia, under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). That case was not proved. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 had received only certain abusive and/or threatening calls. Upon the complaint of the Respondents, investigation was carried out. Upon such investigation, which was essentially based upon the mechanics of the telephone communication, the prosecution came to be lodged. It was observed that no call during that essential period 2 was made and language of the calls was not proved. The accused, therefore, came to be acquitted. Consequently, the accused was acquitted under Sections 504 and 506(2) of the IPC. He was only convicted under Section 509 of the IPC. In Appeal, which came to be allowed, he was acquitted of the offence punishable under that section also and the amount of fine paid by him came to be returned to him. Thereafter he lodged another prosecution against the original complainants, inter alia, under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code as well as Sections 182, 193 and 211 of the IPC. In this Application, the Applicant was to show malice and mens rea. The Applicant was refunded the fine amount. The Applicant is acquitted of all the charges. Since it was seen that the case was not proved against him of having made threatening phone calls, by virtue of the mechanics of telephone communication, he was acquitted. His Application under the aforesaid sections came to be rejected. It may be mentioned that only in cases involving malicious intent or mens rea, such Applications would be maintainable and would result in punishment for perjury. In case of all offences where the accused is acquitted either for want of proof or benefit of doubt, the prosecution under Sections 182, 193 and 211 cannot lie merely because the accused in the criminal prosecution may have felt offended or defamed. Hence, the rejection of 3 his Application for having filed the complaint under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code upon the discretion of the Magistrate, cannot be faulted. In Appeal from the order dismissing such a complaint, it is essentially observed that there were certain discrepancies noticed in the evidence of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and that there was nothing on record to show they were false or maliciously false. The Appeal, therefore, came to be dismissed. 2.There is no material irregularity in either of these findings of facts of the two competent Courts. 3.The Revision Application is rejected. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)