1 Cri.Appl.No.4216 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4216 OF 2010 1. Maharudra S/o.Babasaheb Nagargoje, Age-55 years, Occu-Ex-Military Man, 2. Babasaheb S/o.Eknath Magargoje, Age-51 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Both Jaiwantnagar, Tq.Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad APPLICANTS VERSUS Rambhau S/o.Kisan Chaudhari, Age-50 years, Occu-Agriculturist and Business, R/o. Walwad, Tq.Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad RESPONDENT Mr.B.R.Jaibhay, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr.K.R.Doke, learned counsel for respondent. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 11/04/2011 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicants have approached this Court u/s. 482 of The Cr.P.C. questioning the correctness of the order of issuance of process by learned J.M.F.C. Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad on 31/12/2008 in RCC No.139/2008, by which learned Magistrate issued process u/s. 406, 465, 467 r/w. 34 of The IPC 2 Cri.Appl.No.4216 of 2010 against the present applicants. 2. Heard learned counsels for their respective parties. It is stated across the bar that the applicants have filed complaint u/s. 138 of The N.I.Act against the respondent, which is numbered as SCC No. 366/2008. To give the counter blast to the case filed by the applicants herein, respondent has filed false complaint RCC No. 139/2008 in the same Court. As according to the learned counsel for applicants, the complaint is false, the issuance of process at the hands of learned J.M.F.C. is required to be quashed and set aside, for which reliance is placed on ground no.8, which according to him, as the specific civil remedy is available, the learned J.M.F.C. has committed mistake by issuing a process. 3. While opposing this application, learned counsel appearing for respondent states across the bar that while approaching this Court, the applicants have suppressed the material fact that the order of issuance of process was challenged by the present applicants before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad by preferring a Criminal Revision Application no.8/2009, which came to be rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad vide his judgment and order dated 02/12/2009. According to learned counsel for respondent, there is no reference of the order challenged at the hands of applicants before the Revisional Court, which amounts to suppression of material fact and only on that ground, the application filed before this Court u/s. 482 of The Cr.P.C. is liable to 3 Cri.Appl.No.4216 of 2010 be rejected. 4. Heard learned counsel for applicants, so also learned counsel for respondent. I have also perused the complaint filed by the respondent herein before the learned J.M.F.C.Bhoom, on which order of issuance of process was passed by the learned Trial Court. It appears that after the complaint was filed by the respondent, verification statement of the respondent was recorded by the learned Magistrate before issuance of process. I find reference in the said verification, so also in the averments in the complaint that the applicants herein are running a messing business (Bhishi), of which one Kalyan Bodke, the co-accused in the said private complaint is a member. As the said Kalyan Bodke has obtained Rs. 62,000/- from the applicants herein out of messing fund, present applicants, by way of guarantee, taken the blank cheques by the member of the said messing fund, bearing only signature of the concerned. In his verification statement, the respondent has further stated that blank cheques signed by him were accepted from him by the applicants herein, which were misused by filling the blanks and putting the amount by the applicants herein. Illustration ‘C’ to Section 464 of The IPC speaks for what is the falsity of the document, and the act of the present applicants is squarely covered under that illustration. The punishment provided for this act u/s. 465 of The I.P.C. The said instrument was used by the applicants herein to lodge complaint u/s. 138 of The N.I.Act, which amounts to use of document for the purpose of cheating. The blank cheques which the respondent has kept with the applicants, were in the nature of 4 Cri.Appl.No.4216 of 2010 security. 5. Considering these facts averred in the complaint and also found in the verification statement of the respondent recorded before issuance of process, I do not find any fault in the order of issuance of process passed by the learned Trial Magistrate. Thus on merits, no case is made out to interfere in the order passed by the Trial Magistrate. Apart from it, learned counsel appearing for the respondent rightly pointed out that even though the order of issuance of process was challenged before the Court of Revision, i.e. the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, but this fact do not find any place in the application moved before this Court, which also amounts to suppression of material fact. On this ground also, the application of applicants is liable to be rejected. In substance, as the application sans any merit, rejected with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/APRIL 2011/cri.appl.4216-10