1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1179/2008 Pramod Radheshyam Agrawal & 11 Ors..vs.Ashok Syamsunder Zhunzuwala & anr -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 19 th June, 2008 1. Heard Mr. De, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for non applicant No. 1 and Ms. Wasnik, learned A.P.P. for non applicant No. 2. 2. The leaned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Khamgaon, issued process against the present applicants in Criminal Case No. 88/2007 for an offence punishable under Section 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code allegedly committed by them. The order of issuing process was challenged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon by filing Criminal Appeal No.14/2007. The lower appellate Court dismissed the 2 applicants' appeal by concurring with the finding of the trial Court that prima facie case is made out for issuance of process under Section 465, 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Mr. De, learned counsel for the applicants, submits that non applicant No.1 filed complaint against the applicants on the basis of information received from the Police Station Officer, P. S. Khamgaon (City), under the Right To Information Act, which is annexed at Annexure “E” to the application. However, the said information is contrary to the document at Annexure “D”, which is permission granted by Police Inspector, P. S. Khamgaon (City) to Special Recovery Officer, Agrasen Sahakari Pat Sanstha for use of loudspeaker to advertise the auction of the vehicle. 4. Looking to the controversy involved in the matter, prima facie I am of the opinion that to carve out the truth, strict proof of evidence is necessary, which can only be done by directing the applicants to face the trial. 3 5. In view of above, no case is made out for interference in the matter in my jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application is devoid of any substance. The same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE kahale