1 appln 3388-09 jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3388 OF 2009 Mrs. Sandhya Rajkumar Nagpal .. Applicant/appellant Original complainant Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents (Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 original accused. Mr. A. H. H. Ponda for the applicant Mr. S. A.Shaikh, APP for the State Mr. R. B. Mungekar for Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 1st February, 2011 P. C. 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Ponda applicant, Mr. Mungekar for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 and Mr. Shaikh, APP for the State. 2. The appellant is original complainant in Criminal Case No. 792 of 2002 which came to be decided on 15.5.2009 by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra, after holding trial, in favour of the accused. The applicant has preferred this application for leave to appeal against the said order. 3. It is prosecution’s case that the parties are close relatives and residing in Flat Nos. 401 and 403 separately, but having a 2 appln 3388-09 common kitchen for both the flats. The complainant and the accused Nos. 1 and 2 are women, they are sister in laws. The accusations are over the domestic use of the kitchen, giving rise to the some quarrel repeatedly. They used abusive language and some degree of use of criminal force, such as throwing utensils, cloth bucket etc. 4. The Incident in question took place on 16.9.2002 at 9 p.m. Initially accused Nos. 1 to 2 were blamed. The husband of the complainant returned home aft 11.40. The Complainant reported the incident to him as to what had happened in the evening. It is the case of the complainant that accused nos. 1 and 2 were given support and backing by other three respondents i.e. accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 and they are also residing nearby and they also took part in further course of quarrel which took place at midnight. The offences and the instances though do not appear to be serious but are disturbing the joint living and common use of kitchen in routine. Therefore, the complainant with the advise of her husband reported the NC complaint and as such the Complaint was filed after three days i.e. on 19.9.2002. 5. The learned counsel for the complainant, from the impugned judgment pointed out that there was no discussion for disbelieving evidence of the complainant. The complainant had in her complaint described the incident which took place in two parts 3 appln 3388-09 one in the evening at 9 p.m. concerning accused Nos. 1 and 2 and after 11.30 p.m. on 16.9.2002. Her testimony has not been properly appreciated and as such justice is not done to them. It was also submitted that when the complaint proceeding was pending there was no such incident repeated, and the parties were doing their routine work without any disturbance. This was assured only because the complainant took recourse to the law. She is law abiding and expecting the same assurance in future. Now the appellant/ complainant apprehends that because of the order of acquittal the accused may play similar mischief and, therefore, the judgment & order of acquittal requires re-consideration. It is also stated that there should have been some punishment or admonishment by the trial Court so that the real purpose of the prosecution in the complaint would serve the best. 6. The counsel for the respondents has recorded his objection for leave to appeal and submitted that the respondents did not commit any crime and the said incident is given a colour and the respondents have been falsely implicated and prosecuted for a routine domestic dispute which was never serious to constitute the charge alleged. 7. Admittedly, it was not serious dispute or the incident. However, In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and after hearing both the sides, in my opinion, there should be 4 appln 3388-09 reconsideration of the judgment and order so far as on the point of appreciation of the evidence is concerned and this should also help the parties to maintain domestic relation and respect for each other. Leave is therefore granted. 8. Application for leave is allowed. 9. Appeal admitted and it be numbered. 10. Since the appeal is admitted, the earlier bail order of the trial Court to continue further till hearing of this appeal. ( N. D. DESHPANDE, J. )