:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1569 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1569 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1569 OF 2007 Pratap Narayan G. Shukla ...Applicant. v. Sarvadanand A. Shukla & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.P.N.G.Shukla Applicant in person. Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: R.V.More,J. R.V.More,J. R.V.More,J. DATE: 12th January, 2009. DATE: 12th January, 2009. DATE: 12th January, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Shukla the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.Shitole, the learned APP for the Respondent/State. 2. This application is taken out for leave to file appeal against the order of acquittal. Respondent Nos.1 to 3/Original Accused Nos.1 to 3 were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate by the impugned order acquitted them of all the above offences. 3. The case of the complainant is that he is an advocate and was appearing for the complainant in C.C.NO.20/S/1997 in which the respondent nos.1 to 3 were accused and the respondent no.2 is also an advocate. On :2: the date of the incident, i.e., on 26th March, 1998 on behalf of the accused in C.C.No.20/S/1997, application was made for exemption of original accused no.4. That application was opposed by the present applicant. In spite of this opposition, exemption application in respect of original accused no.4 was granted. It is the case of the complainant that while going out of the Court room, accused no.1 said loudly that on the next date, he would bring and submit hundreds of medical certificates of his wife and immediately thereafter, accused no.2 also abused him by saying ’Dekho Inki Main Kaise-Gand Marunga’. 4. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate after going through the evidence held that as far as the allegations against the respondent no.1/accused no.1 are concerned, same does not constitute any offence. So far as the allegations against the respondent no.2/accused no.2 are concerned, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate held that these allegations are not proved in-as-much as the applicant/complainant could not show that alleged abuses uttered by accused no.2 are, in respect of the complainant especially when there were several other litigants standing there. Consequently, the benefit of doubt was given to the accused/respondent. The view taken by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is :3: possible. This possible view can not be substituted by another possible view. I do not find any merit in the appeal, consequently, the leave to file appeal against the order of acquittal is rejected. (R.V.MORE, J.) (R.V.MORE, J.) (R.V.MORE, J.)