1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.138 OF 2007 Ramchandra Tukaram Patil & ors ..Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & ors ..Respondents Mr.Shekhar A. Ingawale, Advocate, for the petitioners Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh, A.P.P, for the State Mr.Niranjan Mundargi, Advocate, for respondent No.2 CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 23RD JUNE, 2008 P.C. . The petitioner Nos.1 to 4 are Manager, Assistant Manager, Cashier and Clerk for the relevant period of Ajara Urban Co-operative Bank Limited while petitioner No.5 is Stamp Writer, petitioner No.6 is the Chairman, petitioner No.7 is a peon and petitioner No.8 is Recovery Officer. 2. At the out set, as it is seen, in the complaint before J.M.F.C no role is attributed as against the petitioner Nos.5, 6, 7 and 8. They 2 have remotely any role with daily Banking for transaction. Petitioner No.8 is Recovery Officer performing his lawful duties under the Co- operative Society Act in pursuant to Recovery Certificate under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. He could not have been implicated as accused. However, the process unfortunately came to be issued against him. 3. The complainant Bajrang Shankar Dinde from the record has received financial facilities/loan from the above referred Bank in respect of vehicle on 10th March, 1995, 29th June, 1996 and 21st March, 1997. According to him, a loan of Rs.25,000/- or 15,000/- is a bogus and it has been misappropriated. The claim of the complainant is obviously erroneous as he has not answered several Demand Notices issued by the Bank. He remain in slumber for a long duration of nine years from the year 1995 till recovery proceedings were initiated against him. All loan papers are signed by complainant time to time. The vehicle was inspected on 20th February, 1995 and time to time by the officers at that time also the complainant did not object that he has not received any loan. An amount of Rs.12,840/- was 3 credited to his account which was to his knowledge. At that stage also the complainant could have put his grievance. The complainant apparently has invoked jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malkapur by getting the process issued on filmsy and perverse allegations to dodge main issue. The issuance of process by the learned J.M.F.C, Malkapur is apparently on no material and perverse. Consequently, the order of J.M.F.C, Malkapur as also the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Criminal Revision Application No.178 of 2005 dated 10th November, 2006 will not survive in the eyes of law. Hence, both the orders are set aside. 4. Hence, order. (i) The complaint filed before J.M.F.C, Malkapur and issuance of process in Regular Criminal Case No.34 of 2004, the process is canceled and set aside. (ii) The petitioners are discharged. (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)