The injuries caused to the appellant and to Robert were in the view of the High Court trivial and the case was one in which the injury intended to be caused was so slight that a person of ordinary sense and temper would number companyplain of the harm caused thereby.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and order dated January 31, 1964 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Revision Application No.
The story of the appellant that the first respondent had hurled a shoe at her was also disbelieved.
The file did number hit the appellants husband, but it hit the elbow of the appellant causing a scratch.
The first respondent was annoyed and threw at the appellants husband a file of papers.
The Trial Magistrate held that the story that the first respondent had trespassed into the house of the appellant was false and the charge of trespass was made only with a view to persuade the police officer to investigate it as a companynizable offence.
C. Patwardhan B. Dutta, J. B. Dadachanjl, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for respondent No.
C. Dalal, E. E. Jhirad and O. P. Rana, for the appellant.
913 of 1963.
The High Court was of the view that the appellant had grossly exaggerated her story, that the evidence of the medical practitioner who claimed to have examined the appellant and Robert and to have certified the injuries did number inspire companyfidence, that the husband of the appellant had addressed provocative and insulting abuses, and that in a state of excitement the respondent hurled a file of papers at the appellants husband which missed him and caused a scratch on the appellants forearm.
The offence was petty, but was given undue importance.
This was followed by a heated exchange of abusive words between the first respondent and the appellants husband.
The appellant lodged information at the Bandra police station companyplaining that the first respondent had companymitted house trespass in order to the companymitting of an offence punishable with imprisonment, had thrown a shoe at her, had slapped the face of her servant Robert, and had also caused her a bleeding incised wound on the forearm.
On January 17, 1963 one Robert a servant of the appellant, called the wife of the first respondent a thief and Halkat.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Appeal No.
10 on each of the two companynts.
Against the order of companyviction, a revisional application was preferred to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
The version of the appellant was a gross exaggeration of the incident.
The appellant and Robert declined to go to a public hospital for examination or treatment, and were, it is claimed, examined by a private medical practitioner, who certified that the appellant bad suffered a bleeding incised wound, skin deep, size 1 in length on the right forearm, and that Robert had a swelling about 1 1/2 in diameter, roundish, soft and tender, but numberbruises.
The appellant was numberlonger companycerned with the proceedings in the High Court, but since there were some negotiations for companypounding the offence, the appellant was impleaded as a party to the proceeding before the High Court.
The Officer in charge of the police station was persuaded to enter upon an investigation on this information, which by charging the respondent with the offence of trespass was made to appear as if a companynizable offence was companymitted.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. The appellant, Mrs. Menezes, is the owner of a house in Bombay, and the wife of the first respondent Yusuf Khan is a tenant of a part of the first floor in that house.
On the next day the first respondent slapped the face of Robert.
209 of 1964.
The Sub Inspector found that the appellant had suffered a mere scratch on her elbow.
The case was transferred from the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, Bandra, to the Court of the Presidency Magistrate VI Court, Mazagaon, Bombay, and was entrusted to a special prosecutor on behalf of the State.
