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 CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2318 OF 2007. WRIT PETITION NO. 2318 OF 2007. WRIT PETITION NO. 2318 OF 2007. Shri Prabhakar Lahyappa Sanamdikar. ..Petitioner. versus Shri Umaji Dhanappa Sanamdikar & Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Amit Sale, for the Petitioner. Mr.D.R.More, APP, for the Respondent No.2. None present for the Respondent No.1. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 31ST JULY,2008. : 31ST JULY,2008. : 31ST JULY,2008. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned APP for the State of Maharashtra. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 6th March 2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Sangli by which the order passed by the learned Magistrate of issuing process on a private complaint filed by the Petitioner has been set aside. 2. The Petitioner filed a private complaint alleging commission of offences under sections 177, 181, 182, 193, 196, 198, 199, 200, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate issued process on the said private - 2 - complaint by order dated 15th November 2006. The process was issued under all sections invoked by the complaint except under section 420. 3. There were three separate criminal revision applications filed by three accused for challenging the order issuing process. The learned Sessions Judge while allowing the revision applications held that on plain reading of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the learned Trial Court could not have issued process under section 177, 181, 182, 193, 196, 198, 199, 200 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code in as much as the Petitioner-Complainant is neither a public servant nor an authority whose contempt is alleged to have been committed. 4. On plain reading of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 it is not possible to find fault with the said finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. It must be noted here that process was also issued under section 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The grievance of the Petitioner in the complaint is that the educational institution by the name Siddharth Shikshan Prasarak Mandal could not have been declared as a Minority Institution. It was alleged that in fact the number - 3 - of Directors having the language Kannada as their mother tongue is less than 60%. Therefore, it is alleged that the minority status could not have been conferred on the Institution. The learned Sessions Judge observed that the allegations in the complaint in this behalf are very vague and it appears that the Petitioner has an axe to grind against the accused. 5. After having perused the averments made in the complaint, I find that the learned Sessions Judge was right in coming to the conclusion that no case was made out for issuing process. 6. No interference is called for with the impugned order. 7. The Petition is rejected. No orders as to costs. [ A.S.OKA, A.S.OKA, A.S.OKA, J.] J.] J.]