:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.394 OF 2001 Mr.R.R.Salvi. ..Petitioner. Vs. Prabhakar B. Amolik and anr. ..Respondents. Mr.Rajendra Sorankar for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent No.1. Mr,.Y.M. Nakhawa, APP. for the State. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATED : 09.4.2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Advocate for the Petitioner and the A.P.P. for the State. Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition for quashing process issued in Cri.Case No.15/S/2000 for the offences under Section-403 and 407 of the I.P.C issued by Metropolitan Magistrate, Ballard Pier, Bombay in Criminal Complaint No.15/S/2000. On perusing the criminal complaint, it is seen that it is the allegation of the complainant that the accused has dishonestly and with criminal intention misappropriated the old letter heads and the rubber stamp of the complainant-company and he is continuing by such misappropriation of property the committing of offences under Section 403 read with 470 of the I.P.C. It is alleged that the accused had issued public notice :2: in Pune for sale of property at Khadki, Pune and issued letter dated 6.9.1999 to some developers misrepresenting himself as the Hon. Secretary of the complainant company. From the record and the various orders of the civil court which are relied upon, it is clear that the complainant along with some others were removed from the Directorship to membership from the Bombay Diocesan Trust in the year 1992. On 14.11.1994 the complainant and one other person filed declaratory suit in the Civil Court for various reliefs/declarations including setting aside their removal. The said suit has been dismissed on 5.12.1995. It appears that in April,1998 the present petitioner claims to have been elected as office bearer. The said election has been challenged by two Directors/trustees by filing S.C.Suit No.4185 of 1998 and Notice of motion was taken out for urgent injunction against the petitioner and other directors. The said Notice of Motion has also been rejected on 7.8.1998. As regards alienation of the property, orders have been passed by the Charity Commissioner on 24.2.1999. In 1999 some findings have been given by the Charity Commissioner against the petitioner. In such background the present complaint has been filed on 11.10.2000. 3. Though this writ petition has been filed, no reply has been filed by the respondent to contest the allegations and contentions raised in the petition. In my view, the complaint is very vague and suppresses :3: several litigations and orders of the court. No reference whatsoever has been made to those litigations. The matter appears to be the civil dispute pertaining to control of the trust and which can be sorted out by the civil court. In my view, therefore, this is not a fit case where criminal proceedings should have been allowed to be initiated. Petition is therefore, allowed in terms of,prayer clause (a) and stands disposed of. (R. S. MOHITE, J.)