1 (cri wp 1501 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1501 OF 2010 Mr. Bhupen Patel and Anr. ...Petitioners Vs. M/s.Evergreen Trade Place Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr.R.D. Sone with Mr. Jayesh Desai for Petitioners Mr.P.S. Hingorani -APP for the State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 1ST OCTOBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and the learned APP for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings which were initiated by the Respondent No.1-Original Complainant against the Petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 405, 406, 415, 417,420, 464 and 120 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. In the complaint, it is alleged that the Petitioners induced the Complainants to invest a sum of Rs. 3 crores in the accused company and they were promised that they will be appointed as new directors on the board of directors of the company and, 2 (cri wp 1501 of 2010) accordingly, resolutions were passed. However, subsequently it transpired that the Petitioners have been appointed as directors of the company without consent of the complainants. It is alleged that there is a conspiracy to cheat the Complainants. 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the proceedings are pending before the Company Law Board and the order of status quo has been passed. It is submitted that the dispute essentially of a civil nature and it is not disputed that equity shares in fact, issued in favour of the Complainants. 5. It is not possible to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners. So far as the dispute which is pending before the Company Law Board is concerned, it is a civil dispute and the Company Law Board shall decide the said issue in accordance with the law. 6. Taking into consideration the allegations which are made in the complaint, at this stage, it will not be possible to go into the correctness or otherwise, allegations made in the complaint. 7. Hence, at this stage, it is not possible for this 3 (cri wp 1501 of 2010) Court to interfere with the order passed by the Learned Magistrate while exercising the writ jurisdiction and inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 8. Petition, therefore, is dismissed. The Petitioners however, at liberty to apply for discharge at the appropriate stage before the Trial Court. 9. Eight days’ protection is granted to the Petitioners to apply for anticipatory bail. (V.M. KANADE J.)