* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 490 OF 2009 Mr. Laxmanrao Pandurang Jadhav (Patil) .........Petitioner/Orig.Accused V/S. Mr. Laxmanrao Bhausaheb Shelake and anr. .............Respondents ­­­­­­­­­­ Mr. V.V Purwant, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajit J. Kenjale, adv.for respondent no.1. Mrs.Alpana Javeri, APP for State­respondent no.2. CORAM :­ S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED :­ 5 th JANUARY, 2010. P.C. :­ 1. The petitioner who is original accused is aggrieved by an order dated 6/02/2009 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 66 of 2008, wherein the learned District and Sessions Judge, Satara refused to interfere in an order issuing process passed by the trial court on 31/10/2007. 2. The first respondent­complainant has filed a private complaint against the petitioner­accused in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wai being * 2 * Criminal Case No. 520 of 2007. 3. The submission of Mr. Purwant appearing on behalf of the petitioner­ accused is that the complaint read as a whole does not disclose any offence, much less, the one punishable under Section 504 and 506 IPC. He submits that the complaint proceeds on the basis that the complainant while in his office received a telephone call allegedly threatening him. That telephone call is allegedly made by the petitioner­accused. All that the complaint enumerates is the so called conversation between the complainant­respondent no.1 and same person, but it is not clear that it is the petitioner who was speaking from the other side. The entire complaint is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court because it is a fallout of a political rivalry. It is an action of a local politician to involve the petitioner­accused who is an Ex­MP. This is the reason for which this complaint is filed. Continuing of such a criminal case is nothing but an harassment of the petitioner, who is a senior citizen and therefore the petition be admitted and interim relief as prayed be granted. 4. With the assistance of Mr. Purwant, I have perused the complaint, copy of which is annexed as Annexure­A. The complainant­first respondent has enumerated that he is working as a Secretary of Kisanveer Satara Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kisanveer, Bhuinj, Taluka­Wai, District­Satara. The petitioner­accused is residing at Satara and is a Director of Satara Sahakari Sheti Audyogik Oos­todani Vahatuk Society Ltd, Kisanveer. On 27/9/2007 when * 3 * the complainant was present at the administrative office of the Kharkhana at a distance of about 500 feet from the said office, an vehicle came at 2.00 p.m. and the driver whose name is given in the complaint, was loading some articles with the assistance of some persons. That was informed by the Director of the Kharkhana and the Contractor, to the complainant. The complainant came out of his office and confirmed that the articles which are being loaded on to the tempo, are being removed unauthorisely. He directed the security persons not to permit the loading of the articles in the tempo and directed the security staff that the tempo should not be allowed to leave the premises without his permission. The complaint enumerates as to who were the persons working at site. It is stated that the petitioner­accused was enraged by this incident and by the fact of the complainant preventing the loading of the articles and therefore started intimidating and threatening him on phone. Thereafter, the contents of the telephonic conversation of 28/09/2007 [between 10.30 to 10.45 a.m.] are set out. It is stated that the complainant was present in his office alongwith one Sunil Shivthare. The petitioner accused was the person speaking on the other side and he threatened the complaint. The details of the conversation are also set out. 5. It is on such a complaint and after verification that the learned trial judge issued process. He also perused certain documents which were placed on record. * 4 * 6. Against that order, the petitioner invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge and in paragraph­4 of the order, he refers to the contents of the revision application and the submissions of both sides. The learned Sessions Judge has adverted to the settled principles which have to be applied while scrutinizing the order of issuance of process. All that is necessary to be gone into, was whether a prima­facie case is made out for issuance of process. 7. It is not the case of the petitioner before me that the offences alleged and more particularly of criminal intimidation in this case, are not prima­facie spelt out by the alleged telephone conversation. The only argument is that the complaint does not specifically allege that it is the Petitioner who threatened the complainant and it was the Petitioner who spoke from the other side. That is a factual aspect and the complainant will of course have to prove all the allegations. Shri Purwant does not urge that threats on phone will not bring the act within the relevant provision of IPC. Sections 503, 504 and 506 of the IPC are clear in this behalf. In such circumstances, to my mind, the courts committed no error in concluding that a prima­facie case is made out against the petitioner­accused. The petitioner­accused has been specifically named in the complaint, the details including the date and time of the telephone conversation and the persons present are also spelt out. There is an incident preceding the conversation during which the threats and intimidations were * 5 * given and even details of that incident are disclosed. In these circumstances, the courts below were in no error in holding that a prima­facie case is made out for issuing process. 8. To my mind, the order under challenge does not suffer from any error apparent or perversity, so also, it is not a case where the petitioner­accused has demonstrated that the complaint is an abuse of the process of the court. For such reasons, there is no substance in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. Needless to state that all observations made are prima­facie. This court also while dismissing this petition, has not made any observations which would influence the trial judge while deciding the complaint finally. Therefore, the apprehension that the courts below would be so influenced, is without any basis. All pleas of both sides on merits are kept open. [S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J]