1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR . CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2395/2009 Sau. Mangala Dipak Mohurle VS Pravin Bhaiyaji Mohurle and another ______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. Atul N. Shedame, Adv. H/f Mr. N.D.Khamborkar, Advocate for the applicant. CORAM : A.H.JOSHI, J. DATE : 9th APRIL, 2010. 1. Learned Advocate for the applicant was called upon to address the Court on merits with a view that if, some merit is seen in the matter, notice can be issued, since issuance of notice in an application, where appeal has no merit, will amount to vexing the respondents unnecessarily. 2. Heard. Perused the judgment impugned. 3. It is seen that the private complaint in relation to offence under Sections 323, 294, 354 and 506 of Indian Penal Code was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandrapur. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has decided the case by judgment and order dated 17-3-2009. 4. After perusal of judgment, it is seen that due to suppression of facts and deliberate denial of facts, which could not have been denied, the learned Magistrate 2 found the version of complainant to be untrustworthy. 5. The learned Magistrate also found that there was variation in her statement and the complaint in the circumstances in which electricity supply was disconnected. 6. The learned Magistrate found that the evidence was full of contradictions and the complainant's version did not merit trust. In the result, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused. 7. It is seen that the impugned judgment is based on the reasons, which are well supported by the facts as obtaining on record. It is not shown that the findings impugned are untenable due to failure to consider any material on record. 8. In the result, the appeal has no merit. 9. In such circumstances, it will be unjust to issue notice on application for condonation of delay. 10. In the result, the Criminal Application No. 2395/2009 and the application for leave to file appeal as well as appeal, are rejected. Judge //Diwale//