Bombay High Court
Anuradha Anand Mahindra vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 25 March, 2021
Bench: A.S. Gadkari
ssm 1 253-appln5441.10gp.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5441 OF 2010
Anuradha Anand Mahindra ....Applicant.
Vs.
The State Of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 41 OF 2011
Anuradha Anand Mahindra ....Applicant.
Vs.
The State Of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents.
Mr. Subodh Desai a/w Mr. Haabil Vahanavaty and Mr. Naren Nimbalkar
for the Applicant.
Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
None for the Respondent No.2 and 3.
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J.
DATE : 25th MARCH, 2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
By the aforementioned Applications under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Cr.P.C.") the Applicant
has impugned Orders dated 27th April, 2007 issuing process against her in
Complaint Case No.4103612/SS/2007 and Complaint Case
ssm 2 253-appln5441.10gp.doc
No.4103614/SS/2007 respectively
2 Heard Mr. Desai, learned counsel for the Applicant. Despite
service, none appears for the Respondent No.2 and 3. Record indicates
that, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed Affidavit-in-Reply dated 18 th
March, 2021, in both the matters. Perused record and the said Affidavits.
3 Record indicates that, the Respondent No.2 on behalf of
Respondent No.3 has filed two Complaints bearing Nos.4103612/SS/2007
and 4103614/SS/2007, respectively under Sections 328-A and 471 of the
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. It is alleged in the said Complaints
that, the Applicant and accused No.2-M/s. Motoring Speed M.W..Com India
Private Limited pasted posters on pole of MSRDC fly-over at Deepak
Theater and Elphinstone Road respectively of "Motoring" without seeking
prior approval/permission of the Corporation in that behalf.
4 At the outset, it is to be noted here that, to the said Complaints,
the poster of the said "motoring" has not been annexed either before this
Court or before the Trial Court. Mr. Desai, learned counsel for the
Applicant, on instructions, makes an assertion that, even to the Complaints
filed before the Trial Court, the said posters of "motoring" are not annexed.
It is to be further noted here that, the Complaints filed against
the Applicant by the Respondent No.2 are printed formats and the same are
as vague as possible to make out any specific case against the Applicant.
ssm 3 253-appln5441.10gp.doc
The documents annexed to the Applications revealed that, "motoring" is a
magazine published by Business Standard Motoring and owned by Business
Standard Limited, Nehru House, 4, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi.
The record further indicates that, the Applicant was Director of MW.Com
(India) Private Limited. It further clearly appears from record that, said
MW.com (India) Private Limited is neither publisher of "motoring" nor is
related with Business Standard Limited ("Business Standard Motoring").
The Affidavit dated 18th March, 2021 filed by Shri. Anil Kate,
Senior License Inspector of Respondent No.3 is also silent about the said
vital aspect. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have charged Applicant with
criminal liability without there being even iota of material on record to
substantiate their claim that, the Applicant in fact was associated with the
said company or instrumental in publishing/pasting the said poster of
"motoring". If the document annexed at 'Exh-B' to the Applications thereby
describing the name of the Editor and the Owners of the said Business
Standard motoring or Motoring Magazine is true and correct, then the
name of the Applicant is not appearing therein. The information published
by the publisher of the Business Standard Motoring mentions Editors name
as "Bijoy Kumar Y" and the owner is a Business Standard Limited.
5 The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 cannot be permitted to raise a
specious plea that, it is the defence of the Applicant that, she is not
ssm 4 253-appln5441.10gp.doc
associated with M/s. Motoring Speed and the poster "motoring" is her
defence, cannot be accepted as there is no material at all available on
record to even remotely infer that, the Applicant has any concern or
association with "motoring" either in her personal capacity or as a Director
of M/s. Motoring Speed". It further appears from record that, the M.W.com
(India) Private Limited has nothing to do with the publication of "M/s.
Motoring Speed" and/or Business Standard Motoring. It clearly appears
that, the Applicant has been implicated as an accused in the said
Complaints out of misconception of facts.
6 In view of the above deliberation, continuation of the said
Complaints filed by the Respondent No.2, on behalf of Respondent No.3,
would be a sheer abuse of process of law.
In view of thereof, the Complaints bearing
Nos.4103612/SS/2007 and 4103614/SS/2007, respectively filed by the
Respondent No.2 on behalf of Respondent No.3, against the Applicant are
quashed.
Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b) in both the
Applications.
(A.S. GADKARI, J.)
