IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1876 OF 2007 Bama Shaniwar Patil .. Petitioner Vs. Mr.Kamalakar Killekar & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Rajiv L. Patil with Mr.Sachin S. Punde for the Petitioner. Mr.D.R.More, A.P.P for the State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 04th August 2008. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner is the original complainant who filed a private complaint against the respondent Nos.1 to 11 alleging commission of offence under section 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Process was issued by the learned Magistrate on the said complaint. A revision was filed by 1st to 11th respondents before the Sessions Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the Sessions Court has interfered and has passed an order setting side the order of learned Magistrate of issuing process. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner : 2 : invited my attention to various observations made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as the averments made in the complaint. He submitted that the averments made in the complaint and in particular paragraph 3 of thereof clearly make out a case of commission of offence under section 406 of the Penal Code. He submitted that this was a case where an opportunity ought to have been granted to the petitioner to adduce evidenced. He submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has committed gross error by considering the merits of the averments made in the complaint. He submitted that such inquiry was not contemplated while deciding a revision application. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. In the complaint filed by the petitioner it is asserted that the petitioner was the owner of certain properties which were acquired for public purpose of the City Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the "CIDCO"). It is alleged that a limited company had taken the said lands from the CIDCO. It is alleged that the accused are the administrative officers of the said company. It is alleged that till today no one has informed the petitioner that the lands described in the complaint : 3 : have been allotted to the said company. 4. It is stated that the 1st and 2nd respondents informed the petitioner that the said company had taken the lands from the CIDCO. he stated that the 1st and 2nd respondents assured the petitioner that one person each in every house will be given employment and the contract of construction as well as a contract of supply of construction material will be given to the petitioner. It is stated that as the work of construction was given by the said company to a third party, the dispute between the parties started. It is specifically stated in the complaint that the petitioner complained to the authorities of the CIDCO that the said company had started illegal construction. It is stated that after 30th April 2003 the accused high handedly started construction. It is alleged that when the petitioner and his family members obstructed the work of construction, at that time the accused abused the petitioner and his family members and with the help of gundas threatened the petitioner and his family members that if they attempted to enter land they would be killed. It is alleged that on 10th September 2003 the accused again abused and threatened the petitioner and other farmers. Thereafter a complaint was filed on 11th : 4 : September 2003 in the police station by the petitioner. It is stated that no action was taken on the basis of the complaint. Therefore, a private complaint was filed on 10th October 2003. 5. Thus, the perusal of the complaint shows that when the said company had started construction activities, the petitioner and his family members obstructed the construction. The allegations regarding abuse and threats in the complaint are very vague. The petitioner has not even disclosed the names of the persons by whom the threats were given. There are eleven persons arraigned as an accused. The petitioner has not given names of the farmers to whom threats were given on 10th September 2003. Apart from the fact that the averments made in the complaint are very vague, the petitioner himself has stated that first incident occurred when he alongwith his family members tried to obstruct construction. In such circumstances, it is difficult to find fault with the impugned judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge by which the order issuing process was set aside. No case for interference is made out in this petition Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is accordingly rejected. : 5 : (A.S.Oka,J)