1 appln 3362­10 jpc/­ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3362 OF 2010 (for condonation of delay) WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.___ OF 2010 (for leave to appeal) Subhashchandra Baburao Shahapure .. Applicant Versus Ramchandra Bhimu Khirale .. Respondents and another Mr. Vijay Kiledar for the applicant Mr. P.M. Arjunwadkar for respondent No.1, Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the applicant­State CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 28th January, 2011 P. C. 1. Heard Mr. Killedar for the applicant, Mr. Arjunwadkar for respondent No.1 and Mr. More, APP for the Applicant State. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay of 26 days in filing the application for leave to appeal against the order dated 19.3.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kurundwadi in SCC No. 253 of 1999. For the Reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned and the application is accordingly disposed of. 2 appln 3362­10 3. The application for leave to appeal is taken on record and heard. 4. The accused ­respondents came to be acquitted by the trial court. Prosecution was on a complaint of the petitioner/appellant under sections 352 and 506 of the Indian penal Code. In the trial three witnesses came to be examined i.e. the complainant, his wife and Advocate. 5. I perused the impugned judgment. The learned trial Court has discussed in the said judgment not only about present complaint but the previous complaint filed by the complainant’s wife is also discussed. Parties were quarreling since long while they were in service. The complainant, his wife and the accused were teachers in the same school and the relations between them strained when they all were candidates for the post of Headmaster some time in the year 1984. The learned trial Court also noted the demeanor of the witnesses, their previous litigations and appreciated the incident in question. It is not a serious incident to constitute an offence and its essential ingredients. The present incident took place when their earlier prosecution was pending before the court. Normally the parties are prone to file such complaint with no proper reason. It is not a case of direct assault but use of criminal force and intimidation. The Trial Court has given reason as to why it is not satisfied with the material on record and the evidence of the 3 appln 3362­10 witnesses. The Court gave to deny the benefit of doubt to the accused. In my opinion, there is no perversity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court, referring to the said charge under sections 352 and 506 which are levelled by the complainant and his wife, both on one side both and the accused was single on the other side throwing abusive allegations against each other. The matter has been appreciated by the trial Court in its true spirit which is the ‘Court of fact’. No interference is called for. Leave refused. 6. The application for leave to appeal is rejected. ( N. D. DESHPANDE, J. )