1 Cri.WP No.768/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.768/2010 Sachin s/o Vijaykumar Rudrawar Age: 31 Yrs., occu. Service, r/o Anandnagar,Purna, Tq. Purna, District Parbhani. - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra. 2) Amol s/o Shivajirao Patil Age: 28 Yrs., occu. Business, R/o House No.1-19-495, Kishor Nagar, Nanded. Tq. and District Nanded. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.Govind R.Ingole-Patil, Adv.for Petitioner; Mr.NB Patil, APP for State. Mr.Vijay Sharma, Adv., for Resp.No.2. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 24th February, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Heard. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of parties. 2) The petitioner/accused was a Branch Manager of Nanded Branch of Anagram Stock Broking Ltd. The complainant/Respondent No.2 claims to 2 Cri.WP No.768/2010 be a student, was operating Trading Account for the purpose of purchase and sale of stocks/shares. The record illustrate, whatever trading/transactions the complainant had were On- line and those were with Head Office of the said Stock Broking Company at Pune. 3) The Divisional Manager – Tushar Bhat of the said Stock Broking company at Nagpur, moved this court, seeking quashment and his petition being Criminal Writ Petition No. 824/2009 was allowed by this Court. 4) The nature of transaction between the complainant and the stock broking company was taken resort by way of arbitral proceedings before the authorities of Bombay Stock Exchange and National Stock Exchange. The arbitral proceedings, where in-depth inquiry was made, are terminated against the complainant/respondent no. 2. It is thus indicative, the nature of accusations of either showing profits in the account of the complainant or non-accounting the amount, could not be said to be handled/operated by the applicant/accused in the capacity as Branch Manager of the said company. It was on- line transactions directly taken place with the Head office of the company at Pune. The second facet of the matter is, the complainant monitored 3 Cri.WP No.768/2010 the transaction with one Dinesh, for which he has issued a notice dated 29.12.2008. In paragraph No.3 thereof, the Counsel for the complainant/Respondent No.2 informs, about the shares investments, including hand-loan of Rs. 2,00,000/-. If these two aspects are cared, it is also indicative that the role of the applicant/accused is not surfacing in the affairs of mis-appropriation, giving rise to the complaint, wherein directions in terms of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are issued. 5) In the result, the proceedings initiated pursuant to F.I.R.(Crime No.14/2009) before the Shivajinagar Police Station, Nanded, to the extent of applicant/accused – Sachin s/o Vijaykumar Rudrawar, are quashed and set aside. The observations should be restricted to the role of the applicant/accused and should not be taken for any action in favour of or against the other accused persons. Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/