* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2636 OF 2008 Rathnakar Rai .....Petitioner V/s. Shri. Swaran Behal .....Respondents ===== Mr.Chetan Agrawal, adv.for petitioner. Ms.P.P.Shinde, APP for State. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 6TH JANUARY, 2009. P.C.: 1. The petitioner, accused no.1 in the private complaint No.6/SW/2005 pending in the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates' court, Esplanade, Mumbai challenges correctness and legality of the orders dated 21st June, 2007 and 25th September, 2008 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Esplanade in * 2 * C.C.No.6/SW/2005 and the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No.794 of 2007 respectively. 2. By the order dated 21st June 2007, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, on consideration of the evidence in verification and hearing submissions on behalf of both the sides, held that there is prima-facie case made out against the applicant and it is necessary to frame charge against him and the other accused. He directed that charge for an offence punishable under Section 440 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. be framed against the accused persons. The applicant challenged the order by filing Criminal Revision Application NO. 794 of 2007 before the court of Sessions, Greater Bombay. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the above evidence in verification, rejected the application holding that the evidence does disclose the offence alleged against the applicant and other accused and that the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is legal, correct, just and proper. 3. I have gone through both the orders and the evidence in verification recorded before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge has * 3 * extensively quoted the evidence in the impugned order at para.9. The evidence ex-facie does make out the case alleged by respondent no.1. It is further to be noted that the applicant had chosen not to cross-examine the complainant. The applicant desires to rely upon some documents which are yet to be brought on record. Consequently, there cannot be quashing of the complaint. Hence, the application is rejected. [JUDGE]