( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 738 OF 2009 Hirabai w/o Jagannath Dimale and others. PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and another. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.P. Chapalgaonkar, advocate for the petitioners. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, APP for the respondent/State. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 25th August, 2009] PER COURT : 1. The petition is filed for quashing of the FIR registered vide crime No. I-308/2008 on basis of complaint lodged by respondent No. 2 – Aruna @ Pooja. She alleged that she was entitled to receive the amount of the policy as a nominee of her husband. Her husband by name Santosh died during course of a vehicular accident on 14th June, 2008. Thereafter, she started residing with her parents. On 14-10-2008, she came ( 2 ) across a newspaper report which indicated that somebody else had withdrawn the amount of Rs. one (1) lac towards the insurance payment from Corporation Bank, Branch at Marketyard. On inquiry, she gathered that she was impersonated while obtaining the amount and the petitioners committed the offence of cheating by impersonation with a view to cause wrongful loss to her. On basis of such complaint, the offence has been registered vide Crime No. I-308/2008. 2. Mr. Chapalgaonkar would point out that the respondent No. 3 executed a release-deed and she has also filed affidavit that she has received all the payment. He would point out that on basis of such documents, the petitioners have been released on bail in criminal application No. 4365/2008. He would submit, therefore, that now there is no cause for the criminal action. Hence, he urged to quash the FIR. I do not agree. The subsequent payment made to the respondent No. 2 – Aruna cannot, in my opinion, be a ground which would be sufficient to quash the FIR. That will not wipe out the criminal act alleged against the petitioners. ( 3 ) Whether she was impersonated or not and whether the amounts payable to her was wrongfully recovered by the petitioners or not is the question which is to be determined during the course of criminal trial. The grounds stated in the petition are insufficient to entertain the request for quashing of the FIR. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. 3. The observations made hereinabove be not considered by the trial Court and no prejudice shall be caused to the petitioners. All the other points are kept open. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/CRIWP738-09