JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and with the consent of the learned Counsels for the parties heard finally.

2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dtd. 17/7/2019 in Criminal Revision Application No.1251 of 2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, whereby the revision application preferred by the petitioners herein against the order of issuance of process, dtd. 21/8/2018, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 32nd Court, Bandra, Mumbai, in CC No.1863/SS/2016 lodged by respondent no.2 herein, for the offence punishable under Sec. 500 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("the Penal Code") came to be dismissed.

3. The background facts leading to this petition can be stated in brief as under:

(a) Smt. Ekta, Respondent no.2 - complainant is the wife of petitioner no.2 - Amitkumar. Petitioner no.3 is the father of petitioner no.2. Mrs. Asha Yadav, petitioner no.1 is the wife of Mr. Kamal Yadav, who is working as a teacher with Brinhanmumbai Municipal Corporation's Secondary School, Kher Nagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai. Smt. Ekta, the complainant, is also working as a teacher in the said school. The complainant alleged that petitioner no.1 Mrs. Asha Yadav made a false and defamatory imputation against the complainant that the latter has extramarital relations with the former's husband Mr. Kamal Yadav. The said imputation, according to the complainant, was made at the behest of petitioner no.2, her husband.

(b) Initially, the complainant addressed complaint to the police officers on 4/1/2016 against petitioner no.1 Asha Yadav and petitioner no.2 Amitkumar Singh. The complainant further alleged that her father-in-law Jitendra, the petitioner no.3, also made defamatory imputation against her in a meeting with another colleague Mr. Devendra Singh. Likewise, her mother-in-law Smt. Vidya Jitendra Singh (original accused no.4) also made a false and defamatory imputation against her before Mrs. Malati Sharma, another co-teacher that, the complainant had an affair with Mr. Kamal Yadav. The complainant addressed a complaint to the Police Inspector, Nirmal Nagar Police Station, on 15/2/2016. As no action was initiated, the complainant lodged complaint (CC No.1863/SS/2016) before the learned Magistrate, 32nd Court, Bandra.

(c) The learned Magistrate recorded the verification statements of the complainant and Mr. Devendra Sing (complainant's witness). The learned Magistrate was persuaded to record a finding that there was sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners and Smt. Vidya (original accused no.4) for the offence punishable under Sec. 500 read with Sec. 34 of the Penal Code and, thus, issued the process.

4. Being aggrieved the petitioners and original accused no.4 Vidya, preferred Criminal Revision Application No.1251 of 2018 in the Court of Session, Greater Bombay. By the impugned judgment and order dtd. 17/7/2019, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was persuaded to partly allow the revision application and quash and set aside the order of issue of process qua Smt. Vidya (original accused no.4) only. However, the application came to be rejected qua petitioner nos.1 to 3. The petitioners have thus invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

5. By an order dtd. 9/1/2020, this Court while granting interim relief observed, inter alia, that there was sufficient material to proceed against petitioner no.1 for the offence punishable under Sec. 500 of the Penal Code and, thus, the petition came to be dismissed qua petitioner no.1 Mrs. Asha Yadav. Notice was, however, directed to be issued to the complainant qua the petition of petitioner nos.2 and 3, the husband and father-in-law of the complainant - respondent no.2.

6. The challenge in this petition is thus restricted to the consideration of the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned order qua petitioner nos.2 and 3.

7. I have heard Mr. Gaud, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Dr. Karmarkar,