spb/- 1 26-7-668-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 668 OF 2009 Rajendra Gulab Mohite .. Applicant. Vs. Shri Ashok Gajanan Gondhalekar & Anr. .. Respondents. ...... S/Shri Rupesh Zade i/by Rahul S. Kate for the Applicant. Smt. V.R. Bhosale, APP for the State. ...... CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 26th JULY, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Applicant/Petitioner, who is original complainant. The petitioner had filed a private complaint which was registered as Criminal Case No. 336 of 2005 in the court of C.J.M. Satara under sections 420, 471, 477A read with Section 34 of the IPC. The learned CJM, Satara had directed an enquiry under section 202 of Cr.P.C and after getting the police report, the learned CJM directed to issue process against the accused persons. Accused no.2 filed revision application no. 5/2007, challenging the process. Revision was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara and the process against both the spb/- 2 26-7-668-09.sxw accused came to be quashed. 2 On perusal of the record it appears that the complainant-petitioner and the accused nos. 1 and 2 had entered into an agreement to form a Software Company. All the three were to contribute a share capital for the said company. The petitioner/complainant had contributed an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/-. The company was constituted and it had also taken a loan. However, the company went into losses and the petitioner demanded the amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- back. The respondents paid an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ on 07.04.2001 to the petitioner-complainant and assured to pay the balance amount of Rs. Two lakhs shortly. They also told the petitioner-complainant that he would not be one of the directors of the company any more. It appears that the amount of Rs. Two lakhs was not paid and meanwhile, there were proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge noted that the complainant himself had agreed to contribute Rs. 10,00,000/- towards share capital but he failed to contribute that money and he actually contributed only Rs. 3.50 lakhs. Thus there was a failure on the part of the complainant also. Due to this and other reasons company suffered losses. In the facts and circumstances, no offence under sections 420, 471 and 477A r/w. 34 of the IPC appears to have been spb/- 3 26-7-668-09.sxw committed. The complainant could have filed a civil suit for recovery of the money. Taking into consideration all the circumstances, I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the court below. 3 For the aforesaid reasons, the revision application stands dismissed. [ J.H. BHATIA, J.]