IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 71 OF 2009 Shri.Kaluram Khanna ......Applicant/Orig.Comp V/S. 1. Indian Overseas Bank 2. Sh.Appa Swami Rao 3. Sh.Kothandaran 4. Sh.Arvind T. Joshi 5. S.A.Bhalwal 6. State of Maharashtra ........Respondents --------- Mr. K.K. Khanna, adv.for applicant. Mr. V.N. Shingnapurkar, adv.for respondent no.5. Ms. S.V. Gajare, APP for State- respondent no.6. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: 8 th OCTOBER, 2009. JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 25 th JANUARY, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Criminal Revision Application challenges correctness and legality of the order dated 6th September, 2008 passed by the Sessions Court, Bombay on four Criminal Revision Applications filed by respondents no.1 to 5 who are original accused nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.7/SW/2008. By the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the four criminal revision applications and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate issuing process. 3. The applicant herein was running a small scale industry. In the year 1971 he had taken loan from respondent no.1-Bank for business purposes. Respondents no.2 and 3 are former managers of respondent no.1 and respondent no.4 is its current manager. Respondent no.5 is the firm of advocates which represented respondent no.1 in the civil proceedings filed against the applicant. As the applicant was unable to repay the loan respondent no.1 filed a suit being Suit No. 3625 of 1986 in this court for recovery of the amount due from him. The suit was decreed in the first week of March 1999. Just few days prior thereto, i.e. on 23rd February, 1999 the applicant filed a complaint against respondents no.1 to 5 alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 406, 409, 420,467, 468, 471, 477A and 209 IPC. 4. The allegations made against the respondents can be enumerated as follows :- (i) Though the industry run by the applicant was a small scale industry. Respondents no.1 to 4 had charged higher rate of interest to the applicant in contravention of the rules of Reserve Bank of India. (ii) Respondents no.2 to 4 did not credit some of the amounts given by the customers of the applicant to the bank, to the applicant s Account. ’ (iii) Respondent no.1 has not accounted for more than Rs. 7 lacs lying in the account of the applicant and misappropriated the same. (iv) Respondent no.1 obtained decree in Suit No. 3625 of 1986 filed by it against the applicant by playing fraud and producing false and fabricated documents. (v) Respondent no.5, advocate appearing for the bank had abated the criminal actions of respondents no.1 to 4. 5. The trial court on the basis of verification of the complaint issued process against all the respondents under Section 209, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477 IPC read with Section 34 IPC by its order dated 3rd June, 2008. Respondents no.1 to 5 challenged the order of issuance of process by filing revision application to the Sessions Court. It was contended by them that respondents no. 2 to 4 being bank officials, cannot be imputed with criminal intentions and that there was actually no misappropriation of funds as alleged by the applicant. According to these respondents, the complaint as filed is barred under Section 195 Criminal Procedure Code. Further, the applicant had suppressed from the court that his request to proceed against the respondents under Section 340 CrPC had been rejected. The Bombay Sessions Court finding merit in the contentions raised by the respondents allowed the Revision Application, set aside the order of issuance of process and dismissed the complaint under Section 203 CrPC. According to the applicant, the learned Judge erred in passing the impugned order. 6. Perusal of all the allegations made by the applicant shows that the same relate to the credit facilities made available by respondent no.3 to the applicant. As the applicant was unable to repay the loan, respondent no.3 filed S.C. Suit No.3625 of 1986 in this Court for recovery of Rs.21,03,338/- and interest thereon from him. The very allegations mentioned above formed the defence of the applicant to the suit. The defence was rejected and the suit was decreed by the judgment dated 6th/7th/8th March 1999 after consideration in detail of the extensive evidence led by both the sides. Thus the evidence in support of the allegations made by the applicant has been evaluated by the Court and found meritless. Despite this position, the learned Magistrate issued process eight years thereafter i.e. on 3rd June 2008. The learned Sessions Judge took note of the above facts and also independently considered the complaint filed by the applicant to arrive at the conclusion that no prima facie case is made out by the applicant against the respondents. I find no need to interfere with the well reasoned order which has drawn correct conclusions. Hence, the application is dismissed. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]