drp {1} CWP No.879/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.879 OF 2010 Paras Banwarilal Agrawal PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.S.P.Brahme, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.N.R.Shaikh, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 28th March 2011 PER COURT: 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner-original complainant in RCC No.87/2006 has questioned the judgment and order dated 24.08.2010, passed by Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Criminal Revision Application No.250/2009. 3. The petitioner had filed a private complaint against the present respondents and two others for an offence punishable u/s 420, 500, 506, 409, 468 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It drp {2} CWP No.879/2010 appears that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had issued process against the present respondents and two others vide order dated 25.08.2009. It further appears that the present respondents had challenged the order of issuance of process before Sessions Judge, Jalgaon by preferring Criminal Revision Petition No.250/2009. The said Revision Petition came to be allowed by the Sessions Judge, vide order dated 24.08.2010, which is impugned in this petition. 4. Learned Sessions Judge, in paragraph No.7 of the impugned order, has observed that - Undoubtedly, a bare reading of the complaint and the material that was before the Magistrate shows the involvement of the accused No.1, Rajiv Hariom. The only question is whether the applicants (present respondents) are also responsible for the alleged offence. Further, in paragraph No.10, it is observed that, the assertions of the complainant are not the assertions of facts but are mere opinion or belief of the complainant, so far as the role attributed to the respondents, who are petitioners in the said criminal revision. In paragraph 11, it is further observed that the complaint itself shows that complainant had been dealing with the accused No.1 Rajiv Hariom and at most of the places in the complaint there is singular expression as accused and not as accused persons. 5. For the reasons stated in paragraphs No.13 and 14, the learned Sessions Judge has held that admittedly Swarjya trading company belongs to accused No.1 Rajiv and there is nothing to drp {3} CWP No.879/2010 show that any of the applicants is concerned with the same. Thus, the blank cheques were not got issued in the name of said Patsanstha but they were falsely shown to be issued in favour of Swarajya Trading Company, owned by accused No.1 Rajiv. It is further observed that an attempt to make wrongful gain was apparently made only by accused No.1 Rajiv and not by the other directors. 6. Considering the reasoning recorded by the Sessions Judge, in the impugned judgment, apparently based on the averments made about the role attributed by the respondents and if the complaint does not disclose the role, if any, played by the present respondents, then I do not find any perversity in the order impugned, which requires interference by this Court. 7. In the premise, the writ petition, which is sans merits, stands rejected summarily, with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A11/cWP879-10