1 Criminal Application No.739/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.739 OF 2008 Vasant Bhivsan Mistari ... APPLICANT VERSUS Shri K.W. Wankhede & anr. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri K.T. Shirurkar, Advocate for the applicant Shri N.T. Tribhuwan, Advocate for respondent No.2. ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 14th January, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Respondent No.1 has expired. Counsel for respondent No.2 appears. 2. Heard. Petitioner felt that, without his applying to the Bank, the respondent Nos.1 and 2, in the capacity of Block Development Officer and Branch Manager of Central Bank of India respectively, have illegally debited an amount of Rs.5000/- and added to it 33% subsidy. This amount has been misappropriated by cheating Government. Prosecution was lodged vide S.C.C. No. 46/2000 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhadgaon. Same was rejected by a reasoned order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, dated 13.10.2003. Another prosecution on the same grounds was initiated by the petitioner 2 Criminal Application No.739/2008 being R.C.C. No.35/2006. The second prosecution was also rejected by order dated 16.3.2007. The allegations were identical. Being aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon vide Criminal Revision Application No.72/2007, faced its dismissal on 16.11.2007. Consequent thereupon, he has initiated present proceedings with a request to direct further enquiry and issue process against the respondents/ accused in R.C.C. No.46/2000 and R.C.C. No.35/2006. 3. The contention of the petitioner that the amount of Rs. 5000/- was sanctioned to him with a subsidy pursuant to Government policy is not in controversy. However, it was expected on behalf of the petitioner to comply the time formalities. Since there was no compliance on the part of the petitioner to enforce the said loan proposal, the subsidy was returned and consequently, there was no disbursement. This is demonstrated in the official record. In spite of these very facts, the petitioner prosecuted his prosecution with all zeal and velor, which was a mental harassment and virtually torture to the respondents. In all this long drawn litigation, respondent No.1 expired. 4. Counsel submits that, since the respondent No.2 is an employee of the Bank, sanction in terms of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not imperative and hence, prosecution of the second complaint being R.C.C. No.35/2006 would be 3 Criminal Application No.739/2008 maintainable and hence, to remit the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. 5. Rejection of the complaint by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class was on sound principles, to adhere the fabric of legal jurisprudence and to avoid a dismal position as sought to be accelerated. The approach of the petitioner cannot be said to be unblemished or required to be condoned. He, with ignominy, has prosecuted the matter. The exercise of the powers by the complainant was certainly abuse and misuse of the orders rejecting the complaint, confirming the same by Revisional Courts, in the set of above facts, cannot be said to be illegal or warranting any interference. In fact this is a fit case where compensatory costs should be saddled upon the petitioner. However, Mr. Shirurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of his submissions, canvassed that the petitioner has no ill motives, he is a poor farmer and compensatory costs need not be awarded. 6. In the result, the Criminal Application lacks merits, dismissed. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE fmp/cri739.08