vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3874 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3874 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3874 OF 2007 Pravin V. Sheth ... Applicant V/s. M/s.Orchid Embroideries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ... Respondents Mr.Parvez Ubhary for Applicant Mr.Ankush Bansal for Respondent No.1 Ms.A.A. Mane, APP, for State CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. DATED: JUNE 9, 2008 JUNE 9, 2008 JUNE 9, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petition has been filed by one of the accused in criminal case No.118 of 2006 which is pending before the JMFC, Palghar, Boisar. The contention on behalf of the applicant-accused No.2 is that he is in no way concerned with the dispute between the respondent No.1 and M/s.Kaissan Plasto Ltd. as he had resigned from the Board of Directors of the latter company in August 2003 itself. It is contended that no case of cheating against the applicant has been made out in the complaint and, therefore, the process issued against him needs to be quashed. It is also submitted that the Sessions Court had erred in confirming the order of the JMFC, issuing process for offences punishable u/s 418 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. : 2 : 2. It appears from the record before me that certain letters have been written by respondent No.1 to M/s.Kaissan Plasto Pvt. Limited wherein there is a reference to the present applicant and the attention of the present applicant has been drawn in those letters. There is correspondence addressed by M/s.Kaissan Plasto Pvt. Ltd. to Respondent No.1 acknowledging letters received by it which were addressed to the applicant. The complaint details to the acts and omissions committed by the applicant who is accused No.2 before the JMFC. In such circumstances, in my view, it would be improper to set aside the order passed issuing process against accused No.2. 3. Reliance placed by the learned advocate for the applicant on the case decided by the Supreme Court in Anil Mahajan v/s. Bhor Industries Ltd. & Anr., (2006) (2006) (2006) 1 SCC 746 1 SCC 746 1 SCC 746 does not take the case of the applicant any further. The power of this Court under section 482 is to be rarely used and in my opinion, this is not a case where the power is required to be exercised. 4. The application is therefore rejected. The interim stay is vacated.