1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 1611/2008 Sachin Vijay Mahalle ..vs.. Divakar Vishwanath Sable & anr. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Chawre, Advocate with Mr. Deshpande, Advocate for applicant. Mr. Dhumale, Advocate for non applicant no.1 Mr. Kale, A.P.P. for non applicant no.2 CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED:- 30 th JULY, 2009. 1. A private complaint came to be filed by non applicant no. 1 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amravati being Criminal Complaint Case No. 184/2003 against the applicant. The process has been issued regarding offences by passing an order dated 24.12.2004. This order is sought to be quashed along with the complaint. The revision filed against order dated 24.11.2004, by the applicant in the District Court being Criminal Revision No. 40/2005 is also dismissed by order dated 27/11/2007 passed by leaned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati. Hence, this petition. 2. It was argued that on the basis of the First Information Report filed by one Sheetal, Police have 2 conducted investigation and the applicant is facing Sessions Case for an offence punishable under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of this, the applicant claims that the second complaint, on the same facts, is not maintainable. This is the prayer of the applicant. 3. The complaint filed by non applicant no. 2 in detail makes out various allegations against the applicant and learned Magistrate has issued the process under the respective sections. Keeping in view various allegations, the process is issued for Section 342, 354, 420, 469, 471, 366, 506 B, 468, 120 B, 109 IPC. In my view, if the process has been issued for various sections by going through the record and if that order has been confirmed by learned Additional Session Judge, this Court should not interfere in it merely on the ground that one F.I.R. is pending against the applicant under Section 366 of the I.P.C. and since the process has been issued also under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, this case will get ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions. Hence, right now, no interference is required in the order of issuance of process. The application is, therefore, required to be dismissed. At the 3 same time, the applicant will have to be given liberty to attend to the matter in future depending upon further orders, which may be passed in regard Criminal Complaint filed by non applicant no.2. Hence, the order. 4. As of today, no interference is required in the order of issuing process, which is impugned in the present application. No ground is made out to quash the complaint. It is open for the applicant to attend to the matter to protect his interest depending upon further action, which may be taken in Criminal Complaint Case No. 184/2003, to that extent liberty is granted to the applicant. The application is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE kahale