( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 838 OF 2010 Ravindra Ramdas Kakde PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another RESPONDENTS .... Mr. V.P. Latange, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for the respondent/State. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 28th September, 2010] PER COURT : 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 2/2010, registered with Ajantha Police Station, which was registered in pursuance to complaint application bearing R.C.C. No. 228/2010 filed by the respondent No. 2 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Sillod. 2. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner. 3. Perusal of the FIR purports to show that the respondent No. 2 filed the complaint on basis of averments pertaining to confessional statement given by the petitioner ( 2 ) and his acceptance of the liability to deposit the amounts collected from the customers of the Cooperative Bank. It appears that initially, the petitioner was appointed as Pigmy Agent and was custodian of the amounts which he used to collect from the customers of the Bank for crediting them in the accounts of such customers. It appears that he was subsequently employed as Branch Manager. It appears that he had issued cheques dated 04-04-2010 and 17-05-2010 whereby amount of Rs. two (2) lacs was deposited. The learned advocate would submit that the complaint was lodged after a couple of years. He would further point out that the petitioner had given a notice through his advocate and thereafter the complaint was lodged. The grounds raised in the petition are, in fact, based on defences which the petitioner desires to ventilate. The delay in lodging of the complaint appears to have been committed due to the fact that the petitioner had sparkly paid the amounts of which the responsibility was fixed on him. The FIR purports to show that the petitioner was given opportunity to go through the record in order to verify the accounts. The audit inspection revealed that amount of Rs. 12,56,597/- and, therefore, by letter dated 18-03-2010, he was called upon to pay the said amount by depositing the same with the Bank. The petitioner seems to have issued the notice ( 3 ) subsequently on 01-06-2010 (Exh-E). Obviously, it does not appear that after issuance of the notice by the petitioner, a false complaint case was instituted against him. For, already by letter dated 18-03-2010, he was called upon to deposit the amount of Rs. 12,56,597/-, which was allegedly misappropriated by him. 4. The petition involves disputed questions of facts. Moreover, it is based upon the defences which the petitioner desires to adopt at subsequent stage of the matter. In this view of the fact situation, the petition is destitute of substance and as such, is dismissed. 5. The observations made hereinabove be not considered while deciding any other matter on merits thereof. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/criwp838-10