902 ALS 51-26 @.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL(STATE) NO. 51 OF 2026 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant Versus Mr. Nitin Sachchidanand Mirwankar ...Respondent **** Ms. Sharmila Kaushik, APP for Applicant/State. Mr. Kishor Walanju for Respondent, PSI-R.D. Narsinge, Kopari Police Station, Thane present. **** CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J. DATE : 28th AUGUST, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard learned APP for the Applicant/State and learned Counsel for the Respondent Accused. 2. By this application, the Applicant/State is seeking leave to file appeal challenging judgment and order dated 14.11.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2023, by which said appeal of Respondent-Accused is allowed and the conviction as well as sentence under Order dated 06.12.2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane in S.C.C. No. 2085 of 2010 is quashed and set aside thereby acquitting the Respondent from offence punishable under Section 509 of Indian Penal Code,1860 (‘IPC’ for short). 3. The informant lodged complaint alleging that on 03.12.2009 at about 10.45 a.m. she and her husband were present in their flat when the Respondent Accused along with 2/3 persons came in the flat Sneha Chavan 1 SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Digitally signed by SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Date: 2026.08.28 19:45:43 +0530 902 ALS 51-26 @.doc and abused the informant by saying “ तुम्ही येथे राहायला का आलात, तुम्ही येथे राहायचे नाही, जर फ्लॅ ट बाबत सेटलमेंट करायची असेल तर आपण लॉज वर जाऊन ” सेटलमेंट करू . 4. On the basis of such complaint, C.R No. 79 of 2009 was registered for offence punishable under Section 509 of IPC. 5. Investigation was carried out and chargesheet was filed. The Respondent-Accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 3 witnesses viz. the informant as PW-1, her husband as PW-2 and the Investigating Officer as PW-3. 6. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane by Order dated 06.02.2023 convicted the Respondent-Accused for the said offence under Section 509 of IPC and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment of 5 days. The Respondent No. 1 filed Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2023 which is allowed under impugned order, acquitting the Respondent No. 1. 7. Learned APP appearing for the Applicant/State contended that the evidence of the witnesses, namely, the complainant and her husband was properly appreciated by the learned Magistrate and conviction was ordered; however, the evidence has been re-appreciated in perverse manner resulting in acquittal. She submitted that leave is required to be granted to challenge the order of acquittal. 8. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent- Accused has opposed the leave application contending inter alia that the alleged offence is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the Sneha Chavan 2 902 ALS 51-26 @.doc ingredients are not at all made out. He submitted that the names of the persons who accompanied the Accused are not stated by the Informant. That there are no independent witnesses from the Society corroborating the alleged incident. That this is a case where civil dispute was pending between the informant, her husband and her mother-in-law and sister in law. That this aspect was sought to be concealed by the complainant in the examination-in-chief. He submitted that the Informant's husband has admitted about existence of civil dispute. That the alleged utterances of words were not such as to intend insult of modesty of the woman. He submitted that at the relevant time when the incident happened, the mother-in-law of the informant was alive and their dispute was going on; however as on today, the Informant and her husband is in possession of the flat and the matter requires quietus. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 10. Alleged incident is of December 2009. The Respondent No. 1 was convicted in February 2023. He was then acquitted in appeal in November 2024 and State has filed appeal/leave application in December 2025. 11. The Appeal Court has considered that the grievance of the Informant was in respect of alleged illegal acts committed by the Accused/Developer in connivance with managing committee of the society. The Appeal Court has noted that according to Informant, members like her had approached the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Municipal Corporation. Therefore, it appears that there existed dispute between the Informant and the Accused in respect of the Sneha Chavan 3 902 ALS 51-26 @.doc society functioning. 12. The Appeal Court has found that the flat where the incident took place was situated in redeveloped building and prior to redevelopment the concerned room was standing in the name of father- in-law of Informant, who had bequeath the room in favour of mother- in-law and sister-in-law as well as her husband and this had led to a civil dispute between them. 13. The Appeal Court found that there are material contradictions in the evidence led by the Informant. From the cross examination, it is recorded by the Appeal Court that the informant was insisting for transfer of the flat in the name of her husband; however, due to pending civil litigation the Accused had not responded to such request. 14. During evidence, the Informant tried to deny the existence of pending civil dispute; however, perusal of the oral evidence of the husband PW-2 indicates that he had admitted about pending civil dispute. It has come on record through evidence of the Investigating Officer that though the Informant mentioned in the complaint that there were other persons with the Accused, their names were not given by the informant. No independent witnesses are examined. PW2 husband is obviously an interested witness. 15. The intended insult to modesty of woman in the alleged words “ आपण लॉज वर जाऊन सेटलमेंट करू" cannot be interpreted only to mean ‘the Accused and the Informant’. In the background of the civil dispute pending between parties, it can also mean that the Respondent Accused intended to say that the dispute can be settled between concerned parties. Sneha Chavan 4 902 ALS 51-26 @.doc 16. On overall consideration of the evidence, the view taken by the Appeal Court that the alleged offence is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, cannot be faulted. As such, the Applicant/State has not made out any case for the grant of leave. 17. The application is accordingly rejected. Leave is refused. (M.M. SATHAYE, J.) Sneha Chavan 5