1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3756/2007 1) Satish s/o Pandharinath Patil and another - APPLICANTS VERSUS 1) Deokinandan s/o Laxman Patil - RESPONDENT ***** Mr.SS Chapalgaonkar Advocate for Applicants; Mr.SB Yawalkar, Advocate for sole respondent. ___ WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3828 OF 2007. Sudam s/o Mangu Patil - APPLICANT VERSUS 1) Deokinandan s/o Laxman Patil - RESPONDENT ----- Mr.Vinod B. Patil, Advocate for applicant; Mr.L.V.Sangit, Advocate for sole respondent. ___ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 12th August, 2009. PER COURT : . Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for 2 the respective parties. 2) The proceedings by way of private complaint were initiated, alleging that without holding a general body meeting of the trade union dated 19.9.2004, forged proceedings of the meeting are prepared by the applicants/accused and consequently several offences of IPC, including under Section 468 thereof, are alleged to have been committed by them. 3) The matter was referred as an Industrial Dispute before the Industrial Court at Jalgaon by ICTU No.2/2006, and the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Jalgaon, on analysis of the facts and the record placed before him, came to the conclusion that those applicants could not establish that the proceedings of the meeting dated 19.9.2004 are false or fabricated. On the contrary, learned Member found that these applicants/accused establish that there was indeed such general body meeting held on dated 19.9.2004, and in the said meeting, it was unanimously resolved that the earlier body of the union will be continued for a period of three years. It is a matter of record, barring the complainant, no other member has come forward to substantiate his contention that there was no such general body meeting to allow the earlier body to hold the office for a period of three years. 3 4) The accusations in F.I.R. taken as a whole will not bring the case for the infraction of several sections like 406, 464, 468 of IPC. There is no criminal breach of trust. The Minutes of the meeting are not falsely prepared without any authority. No instance of forgery of record could prima facie be displayed. The interference as sought by the applicants/accused in these two matters, is justifiably warranted. The prosecution is apparently with enmesh motive to stall the activities of the trade union and to corner the accused/applicants for personal gain. The exercise initiated against the applicants/accused is certainly a vendetta and will be amounting to harassment and humiliation. The Court proceeding should not be used as an instrument for such oppression and to have other devices/scores to be settled. Consequently, the prosecution launched against the applicants/accused by virtue of Criminal Case No. 426/2006, pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon, is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the terms indicate as above. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/cran3756.07