( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 175 OF 2009 Jagannath s/o. Manmathappa Kalasane .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents Shri V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri B.V. Wagh, A.P.P. for respondent No. 1/State. Shri S.B. Jadhav h/f. Shri V.S. Kadam, Advocate for respondent No.4. Shri H.M. Salve, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2,3,5 to 21. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 16.02.2010 P.C. :- 1. This is a writ petition challenging refusal to issue process under sections 499, 500, 120-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent Nos. 2 to 19 in ( 2 ) S.C.C. No. 5129 of 2007 by 4th Jt. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad, by his order dated 22.11.2007, which order is further confirmed in Criminal Revision No. 360 of 2007 decided on 30.06.2008 by the Ist Additional Sessios Judge, Aurangabad. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition may be stated as below :- . Present petitioner filed complaint against 19 students of Government Arts and Science College, Aurangabad. The petitioner was working as a teacher in music and the respondent Nos. 2 to 19 were students of the college. It is stated that respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were not students in music. However, the petitioner had taught music to respondent Nos. 6 to 19. It is further stated that out of internal politics of the college, there was conspiracy to secure dismissal of the complainant from the service and this was done by some teachers and students. It is further stated that on 10th January, 2007, respondent Nos. 2 to 19 and one more student, who was accused Nos. 17 in the Trial Court, had made complaint to Acting Principal – Ranjan Garge. In ( 3 ) connection with that complaint, the news-papers gave wide publicity, distorted facts, added adjectives, exaggerated things and thus defamed the petitioner. In para 3 of the complaint the petitioner stated that other teachers were not properly teaching the students & so the petitioner had made complaint against them. There were also some illegal transactions by the employees of the college which was exposed by the petitioner. The petitioner also objected to certain purchases made by the college administration. There was also dispute regarding admission of daughter of Principal Garge in the college. In para 5 of the complaint it is stated that the allegations in the complaint dated 10th January, 2007 were of defamatory nature. It is alleged therein that the petitioner was giving obscene examples while teaching. He was making phone calls on mobile to lady students and he was giving threats even at odd hours at night. It is also alleged that the obscene behaviour of the petitioner so also his obscene talk was disgrace to pupil- teacher relationship. He was also making false complaint against other teachers. Copy of complaint dated 10th January, 2007, is produced at Exh. “B” with the petition. It is in Marathi language. It is also mentioned therein that the ( 4 ) music section was on one side and lady students were afraid to be in company of the petitioner. In para 5 of the complaint it is stated by the complainant that without properly constituting Enquiry Committee, the enquiry was initiated and ended. No secrecy was kept during enquiry and only object was to defame the petitioner. Therefore, all members of the Enquiry Committee had called press conference and had given information. It is stated that the male and lady students had given false statements and because of that the complainant was defamed. It is also said that those students who gave statement in favour of the petitioner, their statements were not included in the enquiry report. It is also stated in para 6 of the complaint that the students without reading had signed on the complaint application dated 10.01.2007. It is further stated in para 7 that due to various press releases the petitioner was defamed. 3. Heard Adv. Shri V.G. Sakolkar for the petitioner, A.P.P. Shri B.V. Wagh, Adv. Shri H.M. Salve and Adv. Shri S.B. Jadhav h/f. Adv. Shri V.S. Kadam for respective respondents. ( 5 ) 4. Adv. Shri Salve argued that since the students had grievance against the petitioner, they had made the application to the Principal in writing, so that the Principal may make enquiry, consider the application and give them justice. So, it does not appear that in any way students are responsible for publication in news-papers. The learned advocate Shri H.M. Salve also argued that the act of the students clearly falls within exceptions eighth and ninth of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, in as much as the complaint dated 10.01.2007 was made in good faith to person in authority for redressal of grievances which the students have. Moreover, the very contents of the complaint clearly establish that the enquiry was carried out by the school management and had ended in holding the petitioner guilty and that is why we find various allegations against the persons who were members of the Enquiry Committee. 5. After having given careful thought to all submissions made before me, in my opinion, this is not a case where this Court should exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, to interfere with the orders passed by the Trial ( 6 ) Court, as confirmed by the Sessions Court. 6. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed in limine. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/FEB10/crwp175.09