IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.132 OF 2007 Vinesh H. Tejwani & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.P.M.Saikumar for the petitioners. Mr.D.P.Adsule, A.P.P for the State. Mr.A.S.Doctor i/by Ms Sonal Doshi for Respondent No.2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 28th August 2008. P.C.: . Rule. The learned A.P.P waives service for respondent No.1. The learned advocate on record for 2nd respondent waives service. Taken up for hearing forthwith. 2. The F.I.R was filed at the instance of the 2nd respondent by one Suresh Dadlani alleging commission of offence under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. Prayer in this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is for quashing proceedings on the basis of the F.I.R lodged by the 2nd respondent. Apart from submissions on merits, reliance is placed on letter dated 17th July 2002 issued by the Bank of India to the 2nd respondent : 2 : recording that a sum of Rs.12,16,250/- has been brought back to the account of the said company. 3. The allegation made by the 2nd respondent in the F.I.R is that the petitioners were the directors of the 2nd respondent company. The 2nd respondent company was having bank account with the Bank of India, Napeansea Road, Bombay. According to the case of the 2nd respondent the directors were divided into two groups and in the meeting of Board of Directors it was resolved that the account will be operated by one director belonging to each group. The allegation in the F.I.R is that at the instance of the 1st petitioner a sum of Rs.12,25,750/- was withdrawn from the account of the said company with the Bank of India. The amount was transferred at the instance of the 1st petitioner in favour of Technology House, Dubai. The allegation is that the 2nd respondent was not concerned with the said Technology House. The allegation of commission of offence under section 409 is based on transfer of the said amount of Rs.12,25,750/- at the instance of the petitioners. 4. There is an affidavit filed by Shri Ravindra Keshav Raje, a Director of the 2nd respondent. : 3 : Paragraph Nos.1 to 4 of the said affidavit read thus: "1) That the above matter, all disputes between the Ex-Management (Respondent No.2 (original complainant) and Mr.Vinesh Tejwani; petitioner, Ex-Director have been amicably settled out of Court. The respondent No.2 is not interested in proceeding with the case. 2) I say that respondent No.2 company has been closed down. The petitioner Shri Vinesh Tejwani then Director, acted in good faith and in a bonafide manner. 3) I say that the respondent No.2 the company does not wish to proceed with the case. The respondent No.2 does not wish to proceed with the trial and waste Public time of this Hon’ble Court. 4) There no claim whatsoever against the present petitioner by respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 may mention here that the other witnesses whose statements were recorded by the police are also presently not available as the : 4 : company is wound up." As stated earlier, in the year 2002 a sum of Rs.12,16,250/- (U.S $ 25,000/-) has been brought back to the account of the 2nd respondent company. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent on instructions states that the said respondent has no objection for allowing the petition. 5. In view of affidavit filed on the behalf of 2nd respondent, it is obvious that the chances of conviction are very bleak and no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution. This is a fit case for exercising power under section 482 of the said Code for quashing the proceedings. 6. Accordingly, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). There will be no orders as to costs. (A.S.Oka,J)