1 wp1716.10 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1716 OF 2010 Himanshu Rajendra Bhatt ....Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ....Respondents Mr. Subhas Jha i/b. Law Global for petitioner. Mr. Naresh Fadia, advocate for Respondent No.2. Ms. S.V.Gajare, APP for State. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED:- DECEMBER 2, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for relief of quashing of FIR registered against the Petitioner being FIR No.87/08 of Economic Offences Wing, Unit No.I, Crime Branch, Mumbai. The ground, on which the said relief is pressed, is that the FIR does not disclose any cognisable offence at all. Besides, subsequent conduct of the Petitioner is relevant which will indicate that offence of cheating, for which the Petitioner is likely to be tried 2 wp1716.10 is untenable. The allegation in the FIR does not disclose any motive of the Petitioner from the inception, which resulted in encashing of cheque issued by the Petitioner, even though the Petitioner did not have sufficient balance in his bank account. It is also contended that the Respondent Bank, in the legal notice as well as civil action instituted against the Petitioner, has taken the stand, which belies the claim of the prosecution that the Petitioner issued cheque in favour of the co-accused with a view to defraud the bank. There is not even a whisper of any criminality in the transaction. Moreover, the recipient of the amount was willing to bring back the entire amount. 3. To buttress the above submissions, reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court reported in the cases of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.[(200) 4 SCC 168] paragraphs-12 to 15, Anil Mahajan Vs. Bhor Industries Ltd. & Anr.[(2005) 10 SCC 228] paraagraphs-4 to 10, Ram Biraji Devi & Anr. Vs. Umesh Kumar Singh & Anr.[(2006) 6 SCC 669] paragraph-9, Vir Prakash Sharma vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal & Anr.[(2007) 7 SCC 373] paragraphs 13 to 15, B. Suresh Yadav vs. Sharifa Bee & Anr.[(2007)13 SCC 107] paragraph-13, All Cargo Movers (India) Private Limited & Ors. vs. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain & Anr.[(2007) 14 SCC 776] paragraphs-16 and 20 and lastly, V.Y.Jose & Anr. vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.[(2009) 3 SCC 78] paragraphs 3 wp1716.10 11, 14, 26 and 28. 4. After having given serious thought to the submissions, it is not possible to accede to the request of the Petitioner to quash the FIR in the fact situation of the present case. We say so because the FIR came to be registered on 15th November, 2008 on the basis of the statement made by the authorised officer of the Bank. The allegations in the FIR are merely disclosure of broad facts. Perhaps at the relevant time, the Respondent Bank could disclose only that material which was known to it relating to the factum of encashment of the cheque for a sum of Rs. 1.05 crore, issued by the Petitioner from his account to be paid to the co-accused inspite of the knowledge of fact that there was no bank balance in his account for the like amount. However, what transpired after the investigation is quite a different picture. It transpires that even the bank officials may be involved in the commission of the alleged offence. We cannot gloss over the fact that the Petitioner is not charged simplicitor for offence under section 420 and 34 of the I.P.C., but also for offence under Section 120-B of the I.P.C., which is also being investigated. If the prosecution during the investigation is in a position to unravel the involvement of the bank officials and it is noticed that it is a case of criminal conspiracy hatched by all concerned, who were involved in the process of releasing the amount to the extent of Rs. 4 wp1716.10 1.05 Crores, which amount was credited to the account of the co-accused and has been siphoned out from the said account in no time, that matter will have to be taken to its logical end. This is not a case of simplicitor non-compliance of contractual obligations, as such. Further, the Petitioner as well as co-accused have been assuring repayment of the amount to the Respondent Bank since December, 2007, since the time the amount was released from the account of the Petitioner wrongly and which fact was immediately brought to the notice of the Petitioner. Only repeated assurances have been given by the accused that the amount will be repaid to the bank, but to no avail. It is thus obvious that the Bank has suffered loss to the extent of Rs. 1.05 Crores, in December 2007. If it is eventually found that the Bank officials were also part of the criminal conspiracy hatched by the Accused persons including the Petitioner, who is one of the co-accused, the matter will have to be taken to its logical end. Suffice it to observe that in the fact situation of the present case, this is not a fit case for quashing of FIR on the basis of grounds pressed before us. 5. We place on record the submission of the learned APP that the Petitioner has not been cooperating in the investigation of the case. Besides, it is submitted that the prosecution may have to resort to custodial interrogation of the Petitioner to unravel the real facts. 5 wp1716.10 6. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner has filed anticipatory bail application in this court and will have to abide by the decision in the said proceedings. 7. Accordingly, this Petition is dismissed, being devoid of merits. (A.P.BHANGALE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)