FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURNAGABAD Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directios and Registrar’s Orders. COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS __________________________________________________________________________________________ 9 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1909 OF 2011 RAOSAHEB HARIBHAU BHOSLE AND ANR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR ... Advocate for applicants : Mr. K.T. Shirurkar h/f Mr. Sanjay Kolhare. APP for respondents : Mr. S.G. Nandedkar ... CORAM : A. V. POTDAR, J. Dated: September 28, 2011 ... 1 Criminal application was dismissed in the morning session. As learned counsel Mr. K.T. Shirurkar mentioned for the applicants, the order passed in application is hereby recalled. 2 After the application is restored, heard learned counsel for the applicant. 3 Present application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the proceedings in RCC no. 81/2011 pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed. 4 Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. It appears that on misc. criminal application filed by respondent no. 2 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed, initially, order of investigation came to be passed. Thereafter FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURNAGABAD Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directios and Registrar’s Orders. COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS __________________________________________________________________________________________ offence was registered, investigation was carried out and charge sheet came to be filed and the case was numbered as RCC No. 81/2011. 5 The main gist of the submissions across the bar is that the applicants before the court were not the trustees as they were removed from the Board of Trustees and thereafter certain orders came to be passed terminating the service of the complainant, which constitute an offence for which complaint is lodged against the applicants. According to learned counsel for the applicants, the order passed by the Assistant / Additional Charity Commissioner was stayed by this court. 6 Perusal of the record shows that those orders were stayed by this court after the complaint came to be lodged. Admittedly, when complaint was lodged, applicants herein were not the members of the Board of Trustees. Inspite of that certain orders came to be passed resulting in termination of the services of respondent no. 2. On considering the over all facts disclosed in the complaint it reveals that it constitutes an offence for which process was issued in RCC No. 81/2011. In this view, application, sans any merit, stands rejected. ( A. V. POTDAR, J. ) dyb