1 WP 2787.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2787 OF 2011 Mr. Anilkant Kamalkant Poddar. ... Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents. Ms. Mallika Ingale for the Petitioner. Mrs. R.V. Newton, APP for the State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 12th OCTOBER 2011. P.C. :- Heard. No notice to parties. 2. Respondent No.2 prosecuted Respondent No.3 Kamalakant B. Poddar vide C.R. No.325 of 2010 dated 6.8.2010 on allegations of cheating, deception and infraction of Section 420 of I.P.C. 3. The Complainant (Respondent No.2) came with a case of having paid an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- to Respondent No.3 - Kamalkant. During the course of investigation, the Police recovered Rs.3,75,000/- on 26.8.2010 from the Respondent No.3 - Kamalkant. 4. The learned Counsel for the Applicant - son of Respondent No.3 submits that no case for infraction of Section 420 of I.P.C. is made out against Respondent No.3. 2 WP 2787.11.sxw 5. These contentions raised by the Applicant cannot be gone into for the simple reason, the Applicant is not prosecuted in the said crime. It is his father - Respondent No. 3. Record illustrate, Respondent No.3 was taken in custody and in the search, the amount of Rs.3,75,000/- was recovered. The learned Counsel submits, this amount was indeed handed over by the Applicant to the Police during the panchanama. 6. Considering above aspects of the matter, it cannot be said at this stage that no case for infraction of Section 420 of I.P.C. is made out against Respondent No.3 Kamalkant. That apart, the claim of the Applicant to be owner of Rs.3,75,000/- recovered under panchanama is yet to be established. 7. The Complainant had parted amount paid to father of the Applicant, recovered from the residence. Though the Applicant's claim that he handed over the amount. Naturally , the orders of refund of the amount by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to the Original Complainant (Respondent No.2) on executing a bond on usual terms, therefore, does not call for interference. Needless to indicate this Court has not opined about role of present Applicant in the said offence or about role of Respondent No.3 in the said offence. Petition lacks merit. Dismissed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) 3 WP 2787.11.sxw