1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2355 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.64 OF 2008. Santosh Manikrao Mane ... Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra and another ... Respondents. ... Mr.K.B.Jadhav, advocate holding for Mr.R.P.Bhumkar, advocate for the applicant. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, A.P.P. for the State. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 08.10.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard learned advocate Mr.K.B.Jadhav, holding for Mr.R.P.Bhumkar, advocate for the applicant. 2 2. The Criminal Writ Petition was dismissed in default as per order dated 17.6.2009. For the reasons stated in the application, the Criminal Writ Petition is restored to its original position. Thereafter, learned advocate has been heard as regards the question of admission of the Writ Petition. 3. The petitioner has filed a private complaint case against the father of Respondent No.2 Ashwini. She was cited as witness in that complaint case. Her father came to be acquitted in the private complaint case. According to the petitioner, Respondent No.2 Ashwini gave favourable statement to support acquittal order rendered in favour of her father and thereby committed offence of perjury. He had filed an application U/s 340 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate for taking cognizance of the offence of perjury. That application was rejected by the learned Magistrate on 27.11.2006. The order was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Misc.Application No. 16/2007. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed 3 the said application-cum-appeal holding that it was not maintainable. The petitioner challenges both the said orders vide the present Writ Petition. 4. It appears from the record that the petitioner instituted the private complaint case against father and brother of Respondent No.2 Ashwini, alleging that they assaulted him on 20.4.2003. They alleged that he was teasing the Respondent No.2 Ashwini in the College. According to the petitioner, he and the Respondent No.2 Ashwini were the classmates and there was competition between them regarding the Arts graduation examination. The verification of the private complaint case would show that the petitioner was prosecuted vide STCC No.1657/2003 for offence U/s 110 read with Section 117 of the Bombay Police Act. He had admitted commission of the offence and was convicted on his own admission. Obviously, the petitioner prima facie, accepted the allegation that he was teasing the girl. Now, it appears that he is after the girl out of vindictive attitude. The 4 petition involves disputed questions of facts and the questions which are related to matter of evidence. Under the circumstances, there is no merit in the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crapp2355.09