1 Cri.Appln.No.4513/2009 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4513/2009 ( Shri Motilal R. Dhurmekar Vs. The Satish Soma Bhole & Anr. ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. RS Shinde, Adv. h/for Mr.AG Talhar, Adv. for Applicant; Mr.AB Kale, Adv. For Respondent no.1; Mr. PP More, APP for State. *** CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 20 th JUNE, 2011. ... 1) Heard finally. 2) The applicant/accused, in the capacity of City Survey officer, recorded order dated 19.12.2005, same was communicated to the complainant/Respondent no.1 herein. However, without any reason, the local authority, the accused/applicant added three lines in operative part of his order, thereby entire text of the order dated 19.12.2005 came to be changed, which has allegedly caused innumerable loss to the respondent/complainant. The complainant felt, without such authority, the accused/applicant, as a responsible City Survey Officer, should not have created false record and consequently committed offence under Sections 464, 465, 466, 2 Cri.Appln.No.4513/2009 468, 470, 471 of IPC. 3) A notice was sent to the accused/applicant demanding compensation/damages, it was replied by the accused/applicant. 4) The complaint lodged before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, based on above accusations and issuance of process by him is questioned. 5) Prima facie, above set of facts illustrate a case. Consequently, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was justified in issuing the process. The impugned order need not be questioned in extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, as the accused/applicant had a remedy of revision before the Sessions Court, by-passing the same, he has approached this Court. However, considering above facts of the matter, I find the interpolation being writ-large, made available by placing record in juxtaposition, the proceedings sought to be quashed, cannot be so done. The application lacks merit, dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/