1 APPLN 854.10.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 854 OF 2010 Mr. Atul Ramanlal Shah and Anr. ... Applicants. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. Rishi Bhuta for the Applicants. Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Sr. Counsel i/b. Mr. Jayant Bardeskar for Respondent No.3. Mr. D.R. More, APP for the State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 14th SEPTEMBER 2011. P.C. :- Heard learned Counsel and learned Senior Counsel for the respective parties. 2. Discharge from Sessions Case No.264 of 2009 is sought by the Applicants. 3. On going through the FIR, statement of Mohd. Shamulla Mohd. Karimulla (Gas Cutter), statement of Akbar Khan, the gas cylinder supplier and watchman Shamappa, I find specific role is pointed as against the accused - Applicant Atul. The 2 APPLN 854.10.sxw builder/developer Lalit does not dispute that he has taken the property as a whole for development and there were negotiations and bargain by and between the owner and the occupier. The fact remains that the property was to be developed and some part thereof was in possession of the Complainant. The bringing of gas cutting instrument at the roof of said premises certainly invites action against the owner i.e. the Applicant – Atul, as without any permission from the complainant, the mischief was sought to be done in which the complainant suffered so called heavy losses. The fire was the result of burning particles/sparks fallen from the lighted gas cutting torch on the combustible material. This is so pointed by Abhay Sawant, the Officer from Fire Brigade. 4. However, barring a trivial reference to the Applicant Siddharth, there is nothing in the entire charge-sheet against him. The learned APP or the learned Senior Counsel could not attribute any role or actionable claim or material to proceed against said Siddharth. 5. On revisiting facts, I find there is sufficient material to frame charge against Applicant No.1 - Atul. However, there is 3 APPLN 854.10.sxw no such material to frame against the Applicant No.2 Mr. Siddharth. The learned Judge was justified in declining to discharge any terms of Section 227 of Cr.P.C. as upon the consideration of the record of the case and the documents tendered, placed before him, there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the Applicant No.1 and naturally, he did not discharge Applicant No.1. However, the order calls for interference to the extent of Applicant No.2 – Siddharth. 6. Criminal Application No.854 of 2010 is partly allowed. The proceedings in Sessions Case no.264 of 2009 are quashed and set aside to the extent of Applicant No.2 - Siddharth R. Shah. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)