interim order dated 30.09.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate in Regular Case No.6 of 2008 whereby the Magistrate issued process summons against the appellants herein in relation to the complaint filed 3 by respondent No. 2 under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) seeking appellants’ prosecution for commission of the offences under the Act. The complaint is pending for its final disposal on merits. 5) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to dispose of these appeals with following observations: 6) First, as mentioned above, these appeals arise out of an interim order passed by the Magistrate by which he has issued process summons of the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 against the appellants; Second, when admittedly the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 against the appellants is pending consideration for its disposal on its merits and the appellants will get an opportunity to file reply and raise all the pleas and adduce evidence in 4 accordance with law, therefore, we do not consider it proper to interfere in the impugned order; Third, the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 would be decided by the Magistrate on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties keeping in view the law applicable to the issues arising in the case; and lastly, the order issuing process against the appellants being purely interim in nature having been passed in exercise of its discretionary powers finding prima facie case to entertain the complaint filed by respondent No. 2, cannot be interfered with in our appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. It is more so when the appellants would get full opportunity to raise all factual and legal pleas in accordance with law while contesting the complaint on merits.

1
Non-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.4678 of 2013)
Leena Vivek Masal ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra & Anr. ….Respondent(s)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.10 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.4690 of 2013)
Manisha Uday Sonar ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra & Anr. ….Respondent(s)
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.11 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.5207 of 2013)
Leena Vivek Masal ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra & Anr. ….Respondent(s)

2
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) Leave granted.
2) These appeals are filed by two accused persons
against the final judgment and order dated
21.02.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature
at Bombay in Crl.W.P. Nos. 2252/2011, 2251/2011
and 652/2012 which, in turn, arise out of the order
dated 30.09.2008 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate, Fast Court, Uran in Regular Case No. 6
of 2008.
3) It is not necessary to set out the factual details
of the case in the light of the order that we are
passing.
4) The present proceedings arise out of interim
order dated 30.09.2008 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate in Regular Case No.6 of 2008 whereby
the Magistrate issued process summons against the
appellants herein in relation to the complaint filed
3
by respondent No. 2 under the provisions of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as
“the Act”) seeking appellants’ prosecution for
commission of the offences under the Act. The
complaint is pending for its final disposal on merits.
5) Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are inclined to dispose of these appeals with
following observations:
6) First, as mentioned above, these appeals arise
out of an interim order passed by the Magistrate by
which he has issued process summons of the
complaint filed by respondent No. 2 against the
appellants; Second, when admittedly the complaint
filed by respondent No. 2 against the appellants is
pending consideration for its disposal on its merits
and the appellants will get an opportunity to file
reply and raise all the pleas and adduce evidence in
4
accordance with law, therefore, we do not consider
it proper to interfere in the impugned order; Third,
the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 would be
decided by the Magistrate on the basis of evidence
adduced by the parties keeping in view the law
applicable to the issues arising in the case; and
lastly, the order issuing process against the
appellants being purely interim in nature having
been passed in exercise of its discretionary powers
finding prima facie case to entertain the complaint
filed by respondent No. 2, cannot be interfered with
in our appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution. It is more so when the appellants
would get full opportunity to raise all factual and
legal pleas in accordance with law while contesting
the complaint on merits.
7) So far as the observations made by the
Magistrate in its earlier order dated 30.06.2006 in
Regular Criminal Case No. 114/2005 is concerned,
5
all that we need to say is that it will be for the
Magistrate to decide its effect on the present
proceedings at the time of final disposal of the
complaint in accordance with law.
8) We make it clear that the Magistrate, who is
seized of the complaint, would decide it on merits
uninfluenced by any observations made by the High
Court in the impugned order.
9) With these observations, the appeals stand
disposed of finally.
10) Let the complaint be decided by the Magistrate
expeditiously, as directed above.
………...................................J.
[R.K. AGRAWAL]


…...……..................................J.
 [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
New Delhi;
January 5, 2018