1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 1971 of 2010 Tarasingh s/o Noorsingh Jadhav V/s. Dayaram Motiram Jadhav and three others ......................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ......................................................................................................................................... Mr. Prakash Naidu, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. S. D. Chopde, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 Mr. K. L. Dharmadhikari, APP fort the Respondent No.4 CORAM : A. P. BHANGALE, J. DATE : 22ND NOVEMBER, 2011. 1. By this Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has challenged the order dated 26/03/2007, whereby the learned J.M.F.C., Pusad issued process in Regular Criminal Case No. 421/2006. The said order was challenged in Criminal Revision No. 19/2009 before Extra Jt. Addl. Sessions Judge, Pusad, who was pleased to dismiss the revision application. 2. It is the grievance of the applicant herein that the complaint was not lodged by Banker who was 2 aggrieved by alleged cheating, but by some other person due to political rivalry. Considering the concurrent judgments as also the settled legal position that law may be setting motion to you by any person and, furthermore, the accusation that although, the accused had already sold their fields to one Jaysing Vitthal Pawar and Raising Vitthal Pawar and though they were not owners of the field, they misled the banker in order to obtain the loan by mortgaging some fields i.e. survey no. 10/1 and 10/1-A situated at village Vanoli, knowing that they were not owners on the date when loan from the bank was obtained. In these circumstances, considering the accusations of cheating and forgery, it appears that the process was issued in the present case. The revision application challenging the issuance of process was also dismissed. For all these reasons, I am not inclined to interfere with the judgments. Application is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE Punde