bsb 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 WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 674 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 674 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 674 OF 2007 Mr.J.S.Bhatnagar ... Petitioner v/s Central Bureau of Investigation (Economic Offence Wing) & anr. ... Respondents Smt.Teja Katdare for the petitioner. Mr.Shahaji Shinde for the respondent No.1 C.B.I. Mr.D.P.Adsule, A.P.P. for the respondent No.2 State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 23RD APRIL, 2008 23RD APRIL, 2008 23RD APRIL, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner is arraigned as an accused in C.C.No.1/CP/2000 pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Explanade, Mumbai. On 11.10.1999 a chargesheet was filed by the C.B.I. only against three persons and not the present petitioner. The allegation of the C.B.I. was that the petitioner had committed offences punishable under the Companies Act. The C.B.I. has contended that the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 468 and 2 471 of the Indian Penal Code had been committed by the other accused. However, while issuing process and when the chargesheet was filed, the learned Magistrate has not only issued process against the five persons named in the chargesheet but also against the petitioner and one D.M.Sukhtankar. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the process issued against him. 3. Criminal application No.238 of 2000 was filed by D.M.Sukhtankar in which he had prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 6.1.2000 issuing process against him. By an order dated 7.4.2000 this Court, while hearing the criminal application for admission, held that issuing process against D.M.Sukhtankar was uncalled for and has therefore made the rule absolute and quashed the proceedings so far as they were against that applicant. 4. The learned advocate for the petitioner contends that the role attributed to the petitioner in the chargesheet filed by the C.B.I. is the same as what was complained of against D.M.Sukhtankar. On this basis, she claims that, on parity the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief, quashing the proceedings against him. Admittedly, the petitioner has obtained 3 the anticipatory bail from the Court in the year 2000 and till today there is nothing on record which can be considered to be different from the role played by D.M.Sukhtankar. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to parity with D.M.Sukhtankar. 5. The learned Magistrate was not justified in issuing the process against the petitioner for offences committed under Section 120B, 420, 468 and 471, especially when the C.B.I. had not made any such allegations in the chargesheet filed in Court. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1/CP/2000 pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, are quashed. 6. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).