1 I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No. 617 OF 2009 Bhairappa Anappa Konde & anr. v. Gajanan Donuji Kolpyakwar ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's and Registrar's orders orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A.S. Mehadia Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. M.P. Khajanchi Advocate for the Respdt. ..... CORAM: A.B.CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 15 th FEBRUARY,_2010. This criminal writ petition is directed against the order in the matter of issuance of process against the petitioners. In support of writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the same dispute which is being complained of in the private criminal case by the respondent/complainant was the subject matter of adjudication by a Tribunal under Section 57 of The Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 and that Tribunal held against the respondent/complainant. The appeal against that was also dismissed by the Director of Marketing and 2 thereafter the writ petition that was filed by the complainant was withdrawn with liberty. According to him, this is purely a case of civil dispute and that apart no offences are made out in respect of which process was issued by the trial Court. He then argued that the trial Court lacked territorial jurisdiction and therefore this Court should interfere with the impugned order. Per contra, Mr.Khajanchi learned counsel for the respondent opposed the writ petition and argued that the facts and the evidence that was tendered before the trial Judge clearly made out criminal offences against the petitioners and the trial Court thus took cognizance of the offence. The order recorded by the trial Court for issuing process is a well reasoned order so also the revisional order confirming it and there is no reason to disturb those orders in the present writ petition. I have gone through both the impugned orders. Both the impugned orders contain detailed discussion on facts, documentary evidence and all other related aspects before the order issuing process was made. As a matter of fact, the courts below have even gone to the extent of sifting the evidence in order to find out whether a case for issuing process was made out or not. That is of course permissible to find out existence of a prima facie case. I have carefully gone through the reasons furnished by both the courts below and I am satisfied that the detailed reasons given by the courts below before issuance of order of process are in consonance with the facts and evidence placed on record 3 by the complainant. The prayer made by the petitioners for dismissing the complaint or recalling the order of issuance of process in my opinion is premature and the order issuing process in the light of the above discussion cannot be faulted. The issue regarding territorial jurisdiction which is sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is again premature. The petitioners are entitled to object to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court by filing appropriate application in the said criminal case. Hence, I do not find any fault with the courts below in taking cognizance and therefore the said criminal case ought to go for trial and cannot be dismissed at the premature stage. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the present writ petition and dismiss the same reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners to object to the territorial jurisdiction before the trial Court. Dismissed. JUDGE /TA/ 4