{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3512 OF 2009 Purushottam Nandlal Zavar APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. R.A.Tambe, Advocate for applicant Mrs.Yogita M.Kshirsagar, APP for respondent State Mr.K.B.Autade, Advocate for respondent No.2 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 8th March 2010 PER COURT: 1. By this application the applicant has prayed to set aside the order passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 193/2009 by the Additional Session Judge, Shrirampur. Heard learned counsel applicant, learned APP and learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the copy of the complaint of which the observations are find in para 6 of the impugned order. In the complaint lodged against respondent No.2, the offence is u/s 384, 442, 447, 448, 506, 511 of the IPC. It is observed in para No.6 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that on perusal of the {2} compliant, prima faice it does not appear that the offence u/s 384 and 307 r/w 120 B of the IPC is made out. In the premise the order impugned does not call for any interference by this Court. On bare reading of the complaint it does not disclose the offence as alleged. If the the offence which is disclosed in the complaint, for which by a well reasoned order anticipatory bail is granted, the submission of learned counsel that the order is perverse and passed without application of mind, cannot be accepted. Learned counsel for the applicant has requested to expunge the remarks of learned Additional Sessions Judge wherein it is observed that the nature of dispute between the parties is of civil nature. If it is noticed from the contents of the complaint that dispute between the parties is of civil nature, the Additional Sessions Judge cannot be faulted with. No merits in the application and hence no interference is required. In the result the application is rejected and accordingly stands disposed of. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln3512-09