1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2227 OF 2008 Ramesh Shankar Kantebet Petitioner versus Shuklendu R. Katdare and others Respondents P.K.Hushing for petitioner. Pramod Pawar for respondent no.1. Y.M.Nakhawa, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 17th July 2009 PC :- 1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner. The petitioner filed a private complaint alleging commission of several offences under sections 417, 182, 500 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).. The process was issued on the said complaint by the learned Magistrate only under section 500 of the IPC.. Thereafter the petitioner had applied in the said complaint praying that the accused be charged with offences under sections 417 and 182 of the IPC.. The said application was rejected. The revision application preferred by the petitioner against the said order has been rejected. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited my 2 attention to the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in paragraph 9 of the impugned order. He submitted that the application filed by the petitioner at Exhibit-48 before the Trial Court could have been always treated as an application under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) and could have been dealt with by the Court after making an enquiry as contemplated by the said section. He, therefore, submitted that the ground on which the prayer made by the petitioner for applying the charge under section 182 was rejected is erroneous. 3. I have considered the submissions. It must be noted here that the application made by the petitioner before the Trial Court was in the pending private complaint. The prayer was for charging the accused with additional offences in addition to the offence under section 500 of the IPC for which process was already issued. The application made by the petitioner was never an application under section 340 of the Cr.P.C.. The scope of application under section 340 of the Cr.P.C. is different. After an application is made, the Court has to apply its mind and hold an enquiry. The order passed on such an application by a Court subordinate to High Court is made appealable. Therefore, the application made by the petitioner could not have been treated as an application under section 340 of the Cr.P.C.. In the circumstances, as far as private complaint filed by the petitioner is concerned, the learned Sessions Judge was right when he came to the conclusion that the Court could not have taken cognizance of the offence alleged under section 182 of the IPC in view of clause a(i) 3 of sub section 1 of section 195 of the Cr.P.C.. In the circumstances, no fault can be found with the order passed on application at Exhibit-48 made by the petitioner. The said application has been rejected on the ground of the bar created by section 195 which is referred to above. However, the impugned orders will not affect the statutory remedy, if any, available to the petitioner. Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. The petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J.)