{1} CWP No.669/2010 drp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.669 OF 2010 Nimji Jalpa Padvi PETITIONER VERSUS Chunilal Gopichand Devare & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. A.G.Magare, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. H.V.Tungar, h/f Mr.C.R.Deshpande, Advocate for respondents ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 18 th October 2011 PER COURT: 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 29.02.2008, passed by JMFC, Taloda in RCC No.4/2006 thereby refusing to initiate process against the respondent-accused for an offence punishable u/s 192 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 3 (2) (ii) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention) of Atrocities Act. 2. Few facts, which are necessary for the decision of this {2} CWP No.669/2010 petition, may briefly be stated thus- The respondent bank, though its officials, had filed complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act before JMFC, Taloda being RCC No.395/2002. In the said complaint process was issued against the petitioner. After the particulars of accusation are explained, the petitioner pleaded not guilty and hence he was tried. It appears that considering the evidence on record, JMFC, Taloda acquitted the petitioner vide order dated 24.02.2005. JMFC, Taloda has discussed the evidence of Branch Manager of Dadasaheb Rawal Cooperative Bank, Taloda as DW-1, who has deposed that the cheque issued on saving account No.967 is of the applicant so also of one Bhamtya Valvi, which created some misunderstanding. Hence, the petitioner came to be acquitted from the said case. 3. After the petitioner came to be acquitted of the said offence vide judgment and order dated 24.02.2005, a criminal complaint came to be filed on 06.01.2006 before JMFC, Taloda, by the applicant against the respondent-accused for the offence punishable u/s 192, 193 of the IPC and u/s 3 (2) (ii) of the {3} CWP No.669/2010 Atrocities Act. 4. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order, Perusal of the observations of the trial court clearly indicates that the trial court has specifically observed that no defence is taken by the petitioner that the respondent-accused have harassed the complainant as he belongs to Scheduled Tribe and the respondent-accused are from higher caste and a false complaint was lodged against him. Perusal of the judgment of the trial court nowhere reflects that intentionally a false complaint was lodged against the petitioner to harass him. The trial court has specifically observed that the verification of the complainant as well as the documents on record do not satisfy the ingredients of the offence alleged. Even after perusing the impugned judgment and order, I also do not notice that respondent-accused have lodged a false complaint and have given false evidence intentionally to harass the applicant as he belongs to Scheduled Tribe. In view of absence of specific observations by the competent court that a false complaint was lodged and false evidence was given by the respondent-accused and considering the {4} CWP No.669/2010 facts of the present case, I do not notice that any illegality has been committed by the trial court by refusing to issue process against the respondent-accused and also refusing to take cognizance of the complaint of the applicant. In the light of this, no interference is required in the impugned order. Consequently, the petition, which is sans merits, stands dismissed. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B11/cwp669-10