1 WP : 2694/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2694 OF 2010 Jivraj Ugamshi Revar .... Petitioner Vs. 1. Mr. Ugamshi Jairam Revar 2. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2695 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.460 OF 2010 Mrs. Geeta Jivraj Revar .... Petitioner Vs. Mr. Ugamshi Jairam Revar .... Respondents Mr. Sandesh Deshpande, Advocate for petitioners Ms. Yogini D. Ghawale, Advocate for respondent. Mrs. U.V. Kezriwal, APP for State. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 21st July, 2011 P.C. 1. The petitioners herein are the son and daughter-in-law of respondent no.1 who has filed Case No.54/SW of 2010 for the 2 WP : 2694/2010 offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 424 read with 34 Indian Penal Code against them. 2. Respondent no.1 is an 80 years old man who carries on business of scrap. He knows only Gujarathi language. He had invested a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- in six fixed deposits with Indian Bank, Matunga Main Branch. It is his complaint that in the year 2002, he wanted the name of his son Jivraj to be noted as nominee for the deposits, so that on his death, Jivraj could receive the money without any difficulty. For that purpose, he had taken his daughter-in-law to the bank who is well conversant with the procedure as she has been working with Canara Bank since 20 years. Later in the year 2003, when respondent no.1 went to the Bank to withdraw amounts under the deposits, the bank manager asked for original F.D. Receipts and also consent of his son as the son was a joint owner of the deposits. Respondent no.1 realised for the first time that the name of his son is added not as nominee but as joint owner to the FDs. He, therefore asked son Jivraj to come to the Bank with the FDs in his possession for carrying out correction thereto. It is alleged in the complaint that instead of coming the bank, Jivraj threatened respondent no. 3 WP : 2694/2010 2 that he will neither handover him the FD receipts nor help for encashment. 3. Perusal of the complaint shows that on the prima facie view of the matter, the ingredients of the offences alleged therein are made out. Admittedly the FDs are in the custody of the petitioners. There is no dispute that the amount invested in the FDs belongs to respondent no.1. It appears that, there are disputes between the applicants and respondent no.1 over distribution of his property. Even if the grievances are genuine on the facts alleged in the complaint, there is no merit in the petitions for quashing of the complaints. Hence, the petitions are dismissed. 4. In view of dismissal of the writ petitions, the Criminal Application No.460 of 2010 does not survive, the same is accordingly disposed off. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)