IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.332 OF 2007. APPLICATION NO.332 OF 2007. APPLICATION NO.332 OF 2007. Shri Dnyanboba Baban Awale. ..Applicant. versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. .... Mr. P.M. Havnur, for the Applicant. Mr. S.B.Shetye, for the Respondent Nos.2, 4 & 8. Mr. Y.S.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent-State. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 25TH AUGUST,2008. : 25TH AUGUST,2008. : 25TH AUGUST,2008. P.C. 1. Heard the Advocate for the Applicant. By the order impugned passed by the Sessions Court, an order passed by the learned Magistrate of issuing process on a private complaint filed by the Applicant has been quashed and set aside. The said Revision Application was filed by the Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 in this Application and the order issuing process has been quashed only in so far as the said Respondents are concerned. 2. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant is that the first Accused - 2 - who is the signatory to the memorandum of understanding had filed a Revision Application for challenging order issuing process and the said Revision Application was rejected by the Sessions Court by observing that a remedy of filing an application under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was open for the first Accused. He submitted that a different view could not have been taken by the Sessions Court in the case of other accused. 3. I have considered the submissions. The second Respondent (first Accused) is an Officer of a Limited Company. The third to eighth Respondents are allegedly the Directors of the said Company. The Applicant-Complainant was at the relevant time the Sarpanch of a village Panchayat within whose jurisdiction the said Company had a factory. 4. There was a dispute between the village Panchayat and the said Company as regards payment of property taxes. There was a civil proceeding pending in the Civil Court as regards the said dispute. Pending the said civil proceedings, it is the case of - 3 - the Applicant that there was a memorandum of understanding executed between the village Panchayat and the said Company, which was signed by the second Respondent (Accused No.1). The allegation in the complaint is that the Company and its Directors did not act in accordance with the settlement incorporated in the said memorandum of understanding and in fact, the structure constructed by the said Company has been demolished except office premises and a shade. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that the compromise/ memorandum of understanding relied upon by the Applicant was pending a civil suit between the parties and the compromise was not recorded in the Court. In the circumstances, the leaned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that no offence was made out under section 420, 406 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. I find no error in the approach of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The allegation in the complaint filed by the Applicant was that the - 4 - Accused have not abided by the alleged compromise in the form of a memorandum of understanding. By no stretch of imagination, offences under section 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code will be attracted. It is for the Applicant to take appropriate steps either for recording the compromise in the civil proceedings or by way of filing a separate proceeding for enforcing the alleged compromise. 7. Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. The Application is rejected. [ A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.]