1 Cri. W.P. No. 156.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 156 OF 2010 Yeshwant Sitaram Patil ... Petitioner V E R S U S The State Bank of India Branch Sindkheda District Dhule ... Respondent ... Petitioner present in person None present for respondent ... CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 01 st APRIL, 2010 PER COURT : 1] This Criminal Writ petition is filed against the order passed on Criminal Revision No.23 of 2009 dated 30th January, 2010 by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1 Dhule. The petitioner was revision petitioner, whose revision petition was dismissed. 2] The petitioner was original complainant, in Regular Criminal Case No.114 of 2006. He filed the complaint against the Branch Manager or certain branch of the State Bank of India, alleging that he committed the offence punishable under section 406, 409, 420, 468 2 Cri. W.P. No. 156.10 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code. Initially, the learned Magistrate directed the Police to investigate into the complaint, utilising powers under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter was sent to the Police, and Police sent a reply indicating that there was no commission of offence under the provisions of Sections 406, 409, 420, 468 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code. 3] On the basis of such report, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint. The petitioner then challenged this order before the Reivisional Court and the Revisional Court rightly set aside the order quoting the provision of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers the Magistrate to make an inquiry in the matter under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, even though the report under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has come in the negative. Accordingly, the matter was sent back to the lower Court. Thereafter, the petitioner sought production of certain documents from the office of the accused, but the office of the accused informed to the Court that the documents sought to be produced before the Court were destroyed during the course of business. Thereafter, the petitioner did not lead any evidence, despite giving an opportunity. He did not record his own statement nor he did record statement of his witness. The learned Magistrate, therefore, dismissed the complaint under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Revision Court accepted this conclusion for 3 Cri. W.P. No. 156.10 different reason, but I am in agreement with the conclusion drawn by the learned Magistrate for dismissing the complaint. On perusal of the complaint, as well as the facts that the petitioner did not lead any evidence despite giving an opportunity, I see no reason why the complaint should be further entertained. 4] There is one more reason to show the complaint is grossly defective. While drafting the complaint the petitioner did not mention the name of the accused. He simply filed the complaint against “the Branch Manager” or certain Branch of the State Bank of India. This was also pointed out to the petitioner while he was before the Courts below, but the petitioner did not amend the petition. The Criminal Writ Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) MTK/