( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 593 OF 2009 Kum. Pratibha d/o Tanaji More PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. P.N. Kalani, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. R.D. Reddy, APP for respondent No.1. Mr. V.N. Upadhye, advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. S.K. Gaikwad, advocate for respondents No. 3 and 4. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 21st August, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The respondents No. 3 and 4 approached the Court of Sessions with an application (Cri.M.A. No. 14/2009) seeking anticipatory bail regarding an offence registered against them for alleged criminal breach of trust. It appears that they were entrusted with the funds for construction of a water reservoir. In the ( 2 ) context of said application, the learned Sessions Judge held that there was no material to show that the respondents No. 3 and 4 were falsely involved and, therefore, ad-interim anticipatory bail was refused. The respondents No. 3 and 4 subsequently approached the learned Sessions Judge to show their bonafides. They submitted that they wanted to utilize the funds for construction of the water reservoir and they are ready to construct the same. They partly carried out the construction. The Executive Engineer (Rural Water Supply Department), Zilla Parishad, Hingoli, however, submitted a report dated 15th June, 2009 and urged the learned Sessions Judge to direct police aid to carry out the remaining work. It has been granted by the impugned order. The petitioner then filed a protest petition. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the protest petition (Exh-25/1) on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the orders of the learned Sessions Judge are bad in law because the learned Sessions Judge has ( 3 ) traveled beyond the scope of section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He would submit that the rights of the petitioner are likely to be affected due to such construction in as much as she has filed a civil suit to recover possession of the property. He would submit that though she was minor at the relevant time, yet, purportedly a gift-deed dated 25-01-1999 was brought into existence showing her age as 19 years. She has, in fact, not gifted the open place as shown in the gift- deed. A copy of the gift-deed (Exh-E) shows that the land was gifted to the Zilla Parishad Primary School. Whether the petitioner was minor at the relevant time or was a major person is a disputed question of fact. She has already filed a civil suit and, therefore, it is not necessary to go into the question of title. It prima facie appears that the land was gifted and the school is in possession of part of the said land. The petitioner has ventilated disputed questions of fact regarding ownership of the land in question, the allegations about her minority and regarding her likelihood to be put to loss. All these aspects fall outside the realm of the supervisory jurisdiction available under Article 227 of ( 4 ) the Constitution of India. The impugned order cannot be challenged by the present petitioner who has no concern with the matter pertaining to the anticipatory bail. In such circumstances, the petition is dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/criwp593-09