1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.203/2010 Anand P.Joshi Petitioner Vs. Civil Court,Sr.Division,Pune and Ors. Respondents Mr.Anand Joshi, Petitioner in person Mr.Sandeep Shinde with Mr.A.S.Gadkari for Res.3 Mr.J.B.Kocheta,for Res.2 Mrs.Kejriwal,APP for Res.1 CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI, & SMT.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATE : 3rd MARCH, 2010. P.C. . The petitioner has made following prayers. (b) Sanction U/s 197 to prosecute Hon’ble Judge Mr.S.S.Khandagale under section 219 of IPC be allowed. (c) Prosecution of Respondent-2 Bank of Maharashtra, Central Office, Pune,be allowed along with above judicial officer U/s 219 of IPC read with section 34 of IPC. 2] Prayers made by the petitioner cannot be granted. It is well settled by catena of judgment that the sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent mind for the generation of genuine satisfaction whether prosecution has to be sanctioned or not. The mind of the 2 sanctioning authority should not be under pressure from any quarter nor should any external force be acting upon it to take a decision one way or the other. In this connection it is useful to refer Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs.State of Gujarat Vs.State of Gujarat, (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases, 622. In the circumstances it is not possible for this Court to grant sanction. 3] In view of the settled legal position the petition is dismissed. 4] This would, however, not preclude the petitioner from availing of any other appropriate remedy, if available. However, we make it clear that this direction should not be taken as an expression of our opinion that the petitioner can file such proceeding. 5] If such proceeding is filed , the concerned Court or authority shall consider it independently and in accordance with law. (Smt.Ranjana Desai,J.) (Smt.Mridula Bhatkar,J.) 3