1 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.2099 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.2099 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.2099 OF 2007 Mr.Virendrasingh Bhagwansinh Parmar, General Power of Attorney of :- 1. Asha Control Panel & ors. : Petitioners versus State of Maharashtra & ors. : Respondents. Mr.Yogendrasingh Rajput for the petitioners Mr.J.P.Yagnik, APP, for the State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. DATED DATED DATED : FEBRUARY 01, 2008. : FEBRUARY 01, 2008. : FEBRUARY 01, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. An order passed by the Addl.Sessions Judge, Pune dated 4th July 2007, allowing the Revision filed by the present respondents and quashing the order of issue of process passed by 2 the J.M.F.C., Court No.9, Pune, has given rise to filing of this writ petition. The petitioners were assigned sub-contract by the respondents for performing the work of Assembly of CT & PT by material supplied to them. Work of routine testing of CT and PT was also assigned to the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners/complainants that initially the bills submitted by the petitioners were cleared by the respondents and the amounts were duly paid. However, the bills submitted thereafter were not cleared and, according to the petitioners, they had to recover a sum of Rs.2,97,012 from the respondents. The suit is already filed by the petitioners against the respondents. 2. In the above set of facts, the Revisional Court has found that the dispute is about breach of terms of contract between the petitioners and the respondents which gives rise to civil action. The court has also, on perusal of the complaint, found that the ingredients of Sections 418 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted to the facts of the present case. 3. Perused the order impugned so also the 3 complaint filed by the petitioners. The order does not suffer from any patent illegality warranting any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The view taken by the Revisional court is a possible view. Hence the writ petition is summarily dismissed. [A.P.DESHPANDE,J] [A.P.DESHPANDE,J] [A.P.DESHPANDE,J]