1 CRA-680-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 680 OF 2009 Vasudeo Gurnomal Rohra ... Applicant (Orig. Respondent No.1) vs. Omprakash Gurnomal Rohra & Anr. Respondents (No.1 - orig. petitioner No.2 - Resp.No.2) Mr.Nitin Mulye, Advocate, for the applicant Mr.J.S.Chandnani,Advocate for the respondent No.1. Mr. D.R.More, APP, for the respondent No.2 State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 5th April, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant before this Court is the original complainant and the respondent No.1 is the original accused. Complaint No. 378/2008 has been filed before JMFC, Pimpri, Pune. The complainant and the accused are real brothers. Both were directions of M/s.Hopeful Traders Pvt.Ltd. a company incorporated under the Companies Act. According to the applicant/complainant , the 2 CRA-680-09.sxw respondent No.1 had relinquished the post of director in the year 1996. On the basis of that, he had also asked the Bank from whom the company had taken some loan to discharge him as guarantor and to release his property. According to the complainant, in the year 2008, when the company wanted to obtain some loan, the respondent/accused approached the Bank claiming to be the director and asked the Bank not to release any money. On the basis of this, the complaint was filed under Sections 419, 420, 426 and 500 of IPC. The learned Magistrate issued the process against the accused for the offence under Section 419 read with Sec.511 and under Sec.500 of IPC. The respondents challenged that order by filing criminal revision application No.985/2008 before the Sessions Court.The Revision Application was allowed and the order issuing process was set aside. That order is challenged in the present revision Application. 3. On perusal of the complaint, there is nothing to show that the accused had impersonated as somebody else and had attempted to cheat the complainant nor there is anything on record on the basis of which it could be said that the accused had defamed the complainant. 4. Therefore, no criminal case is made out. Hence, I find no substance in the present Application. 3 CRA-680-09.sxw 5, The Revision Application stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)