( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 642 OF 2009 Abhay s/o. Narayan Raje and ors. .. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and anr. .. Respondents Shri V.P. Latange with Shri B.S. Shinde, Advocates for the petitioners. Mrs. B.R. Khekale, A.P.P. for respondent No.1. Shri Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 04.12.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri V.P. Latange for the petitioner and Adv. Shri Mukul Kulkarni for respondent No.2. This petition is filed by the erstwhile Chairman and Directors of Shri Kala Hanuman Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon, on which administrator was appointed. As per case of the complainant, on 07.06.2007 the administrator had taken charge of the society. Petitioner No.1 was Chairman, petitioner No. 2 was Vice Chairman of the society. Other ( 2 ) petitioners were directors. Respondent No.2 filed private complaint bearing R.C.C. No. 384 of 2007, in which it is alleged by respondent No.2 that he was acquainted with petitioner No.1 and at the behest of petitioner No.1, he had deposited various sums from time to time between 02.05.2006 to 25.01.2007. Thus, in all he had deposited amount of Rs. 3,44,867/-. It is case of respondent No.2 that after period of deposit was over, he went to demand money, but he was asked to extend period of deposit. However, his wife was ill and he wanted money for medical treatment, therefore on 15.06.2007 he went to the society. At that time petitioner No.1 and manager gave him abuses, threats and sent him back. Thereafter, he issued notice on 07.08.2007. In-spite of that the amount was not paid and thus it is stated that accused Nos. 1 to 16 committed offence punishable under Section 420, 406, 504, 506 and 34 of the I.P.C. 2. After perusal of the abovesaid complaint and perusal of police report of investigation and statements of witnesses recorded by police, the Magistrate was satisfied regarding accused inducing complainant in depositing the amount. Therefore, the Magistrate issued process under ( 3 ) Sections 420, 409, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. The order of issuance of process is passed on 07.01.2008. 3. Present petition is filed by original accused Nos. 1,14,13,12 and 9 with a prayer to quash and set aside complaint R.C.C. No. 384 of 2007. One of the important arguments that is made before this Court for quashing criminal private complaint is that as against same accused Nos. 1 to 16, who were made accused in Criminal Case No. 384 of 2007, F.I.R. bearing No. 120 of 2007 was filed at Bazar Peth Police Station, Jalgaon, for offence punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409, 420, 468, 471, 472, 477, 31,120-b and 34 of the I.P.C. It is alleged that the offences were committed in between 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006. The complaint was lodged by administrator – Shri Ajay Raghunath Dabhade on 05.10.2007. Therein, he alleged that auditor – Chopde had audited accounts of Shri Kala Hanuman Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon, for the accounting year 2005-2006. Similarly, in the truth finding report 2007, it was found that the Chairman, Manager, Board of Directors, other employees along with some suspicious and bogus share-holders entered into conspiracy and committed ( 4 ) misappropriation and criminal breach of trust of Rs. 6 crores 15 lakhs. It is also said that depositors were cheated, the administration was misled, false documents were prepared, loans were given in excess of actual valuation of securities without following procedure and beyond permissible limits on bogus names. Sometimes, names were not tallying or names of the borrowers and guarantors were mentioned together and thus false documents were prepared and there was cheating and misrepresentation to the depositors. Thus various offences were committed. 4. It is also brought to my notice that present petitioners who were some of the accused in R.C.C. No. 384 of 2007 have filed application under Section 210 of the Cr. P.C. stating therein that C.R. No. 120 of 2007 was filed and registered with Bazar Peth Police Station and under the circumstances action under Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. is necessary. Copy of that application, say filed thereon by the present respondent No.3 and the order passed by the Magistrate are enclosed with the reply affidavit at Exh. R-1. It is stated that in view of pendency of present petition, the Magistrate did not pass any order. ( 5 ) 5. Thus, as per the petitioners who were accused person, private complaint filed by respondent No.2 and the crime registered at the instance of administrator were in respect of one and same crime. Therefore, Section 210 of Cr.P.C. applies. Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. is as follows :- “210. (1) When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as complaint case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject-matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation. (2) If a report is made by the investigating police officer under section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report. (3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Code.” ( 6 ) 6. It is also clear from the order of issuance of process dated 07.01.2008 passed by the learned Magistrate that besides complaint, papers of investigation by police was considered. In-fact, there was order under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. Police recorded statements. On the basis of entire record process was issued. So, this is not case where complaint should be struck down as not maintainable in law under extra-ordinary jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. At the most it can be said that the Magistrate may proceed to decide application filed under Section 210 of Cr.P.C. 7. Second submission made before this Court is that in similar circumstance of filing of complaint, Criminal Writ Petition No. 217 of 2008 is filed and the Court stayed further proceedings of the complaint. That was first day when Court also admitted writ petition and other advocates for the respondents had waived notice. It is an interim order and not final order. So it is not necessary for this Court to stay present proceedings. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my ( 7 ) opinion, this writ petition has no merit and same deserves to be dismissed. However, at the same time the Magistrate is directed to examine whether the trial for offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 409 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. can be clubbed together with trial for offences punishable under Section 504 and 506 of the I.P.C. 9. With these observations, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/DEC09/crwp642.09