1 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2638 OF 2010 Parmanand B. Thakur ... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. ... Respondents Mr. Ghanshyam Upadhayay i/by M/s. Law Juris, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATED : AUGUST 30, 2011 P.C. The order in Criminal Revision Application No. 111 of 2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay dated 15.7.2010, quashing the process against respondent no. 2 is questioned. The matter revovles to release of picture titled "Boom". The complainant (petitioner) claims he went to theater Galaxi at Bandra to watch the movie with his family members and he felt that the appearance of women in the said film was indecent and it was beyond tolerance and consequently the petitioner and his family members left the theater in 2 between out of shame and went beck to home. This gave rise to prosecution in terms of several sections of I.P.C. i.e. 292, section 3, 4 and 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition)Act, 1986. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate by his order has issued process only under section 292 IPC and section 4 read with section 6 of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986. The learned counsel submits that the order of revision court suffers from illegality as obscenity to which reference was given in the complaint was sufficient to sustain issuance of process. No reasons are required tobe elaborately discussed by the learned Judge issuing process. There cannot be quarrel on the proposition that at the time of issuance of process, it is subjective primary satisfaction of the leaned Judge, which weighs and elaborate narration of the events is not imperative. However, reading the complaint as a whole, it is more than clear that feelings generated and nursed by the petitioner as complainant, are not so elaborately indicated in para 4, 5 and 6 or at any other place of the complaint. The audio cassette was allegedly tendered to establish his contention. One should not loose the sight of basic fact that the picture "Boom" was released under legal banner as it 3 was approved by the Censor Board of the nation and thereafter, it was released. Taking these aspects into consideration, rejection by the learned Sessions Judge of issuance of process does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality to cause interference therein. Petition lacks merit. Dismissed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)