1 (cri appln 384 of 2009) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.384 OF 2009 Dr.Sanjay V. Dahasahasra ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr.P.M. Pradhan i/b. Mr. A.R.Pitle for Petitioner Mr.P.S. Hingorani -APP for the State. Mr.M.H. Patel for Respondent No.2 (appearing in person) ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 1ST OCTOBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2, who is appearing in person. 2. The Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Learned Magistrate, directing investigation under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. pursuant to which, a complaint has been filed and is registered with Kherwadi Police Station. 3. The brief facts of the present case are that the Respondent No.2 had filed a complaint in which he alleged that the original accused Nos.1 to 6 had misappropriated huge amount by fabrication of 2 (cri appln 384 of 2009) documents. 4. Admittedly, the Petitioner herein who is the original accused No.7 was not in-charge of the said office at the relevant time when the said offence was allegedly committed by the original accused Nos.1 to 6. The grievance of the complainant against the Petitioner is that he did not give inspection of the documents though it was demanded by the Complainant and no co-operation has been given to the complainant. Therefore, he added as the accused No.7. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner admittedly was not involved in the commission of the said offence as it can be seen from paragraph 11 of the complaint. He submitted that, therefore, no offence is made out against the present Petitioner. 6. The Respondent No.2, who is appearing in person submitted that initially the Petitioner herein had not given inspection of the said documents and therefore, his name was added. However, thereafter, he had co-operated with the Complainant and the Complainant does not wish to prosecute the Petitioner herein. 3 (cri appln 384 of 2009) 7. In view of the statement made by the Original Complainant and taking into consideration the averments made in the petition, in my view, no case is made out against the Petitioner even if the averments made in the complaint are accepted at its face value. Hence, by consent of parties, the petition is allowed and is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). The complaint pending before the Court of 32nd Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra, Mumbai is, therefore, quashed and set aside. (V.M. KANADE J.)