1 CR.W.P. NO.711 OF 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.711 of 2010 1. Shri Ashok Popat Mahajan, Age 44 years, Occup. service, r/o The Amalner Co.op. Bank Ltd., Amalner, Tal. Amalner, District Jalgaon. 2. Shri Subhash Pralhad Tambat, Age 55 years, occup. Service, r/o as above. 3. Shri Sanjay Ramdas Thakur, Age 39 years, occup. Service, r/o as above. 4. Shri Anil Arjun Bansode, Age 40 years, occup. Service, r/o as above. 5. Shri Pradip Santosh Patil, Age 40 years, occup. Service, r/o as above. 6. Shri Jitendra Jagannath Shirshat, Age 36 years, occu. Service, 7. Shri Kamlakar Narayan Thakur, Age 55 years, occup. Service, r/o as above. 8. Shri Ravindra s/o Himmat Sardar, Age 31 years, occup. Service, r/o as above. 9. Shri Madhusudan Hariniwas Lathi, Age 44 years, occup. Service, r/o New Plots, Near Mill Majdoor Sangh, Amalner, District Jalgaon. 2 CR.W.P. NO.711 OF 2010 10. Shri Vinod Jagannath Khairnar, Age 57 years, Occup. Service, r/o Amalner, District Jalgaon. ...PETITIONERS (Ori.Applicants) VERSUS 1. Lotan Maharu Chaudhari, Age 61 years, occup. Business, r/o Ganesh Colony, Dhule Road, Amalner, Tal. Amalner, District Jalgaon. 2. The State of Maharashtra. ...RESPONDENTS (Ori.Respondents) ... Mr.Manish N.Nawandar, Adv., for the petitioners. Mr. M.B.Sandanshiv, Adv., for R.No.1. Mr. P.P.More, APP for respondent no.2 State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:June 14th, 2011 *** PER COURT : 1. Learned Counsel for respondent no.1 has tendered affidavit in reply, copy received by Mr. M.N.Nawandar, Counsel for petitioners. 2. The accused/applicants question issuance of process in SCC No.493/2008 for offense under 3 CR.W.P. NO.711 OF 2010 Sections 143, 427, 447, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., by seeking to exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 3. Respondent Lotan had availed financial facilities to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- ( Rs. fifteen lacs) from the Amalner Cooperative Bank Ltd., Amalner, and the accused/applicants are the employees of the said Bank. There were arrears in remittance of the installments. The Bank contemplated action against the complainant Lotan for recovery. 4. Being aggrieved by the action of the Bank, the complainant Lotan approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Aurangabad and, in Application No.20/2007, show cause notice was issued to the Bank to remain present on 17.9.2007. The Bank has caused its appearance and, thereafter, on 25.9.2007, the respondent Bank and its employees were directed to maintain status quo till the next date of hearing. 5. The grievance of the complainant was, inspite of such status quo order, the accused/applicants, by arrogance of power in them, aborted it, visited his shop premises in his absence, caused measurement, threatened to seize it and, thereafter, went to the house of complainant on 18.10.2010 and abused his son and 4 CR.W.P. NO.711 OF 2010 wife. Complainant approached the learned Police Inspector at Amalner Police Station, informing the atrocious acts of the accused/applicants and, their behaviour, as to how the accused/applicants humiliated his family members and his son. He alleged infraction of Sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC. 6. Learned Counsel for the accused/applicants submits that the prosecution is nothing but a ruse to avoid payment schedule of Rs.15,00,000/- ( Rs. fifteen lacs) and to exercise pressure tactics. Based on the complaint lodged by the complainant before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, in Summary Complaint No.493/2008, the matter was referred in terms of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. for investigation and report to the Police. The Police authorities have reported that the complainant has borrowed Rs.15,00,000/- ( Rs. fifteen lacs) and since he did not comply its repayment upto 14.2.2008, the Bank has issued notices against him and, thereafter, the Bank tried to recover the amount and the Police informed that the complaint is a pressure tactics to avoid payment. 7. Reading above aspects of the matter, it is clear, inspite of there being status quo orders by the competent forum of Debts Recovery 5 CR.W.P. NO.711 OF 2010 Tribunal, to the knowledge of the Bank, its officers, without any occasion, reason and cause, visited shop premises and house of the complainant. His family members were threatened, measurement was caused. It was not that the accused/applicants were alone but they were in the galaxy of 20/25 other persons. Abuses were freely hurled, as is informed in the complaint and report. 8. It may be that the complainant is a rank defaulter in remittance of the amount borrowed by the Bank, however, that by itself will not give a license to the Bank, to take law into its hand, to send a message of arrogance, to exercise its powers in such a manner, and that too, against the backdrop of `status quo' orders of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. They should have refrained from visiting the shop and demonstrating their arrogance and causing threat perception in the mind of family members of the complainant. 9. Considering above aspects of the matter, inspite of there being negative report from the Police, the learned Judge has issued process against the accused/applicants, based on the complaint. Considering the above features, I do not see any perversity in the orders under challenge. 6 CR.W.P. NO.711 OF 2010 Consequently, writ petition lacks merit, dismissed. The observations are prima facie in nature, and not to be taken as final verdict. Rule discharged. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/711-10crwp