1 WP : 2767/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2767 OF 2010 Mr. Sanjay Chandrakant Panchal .... Petitioners & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents Mr. A.M. Saraogi, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. P.S. Hingorani, APP for State. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 17th January, 2011 P.C. 1. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India and under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing of F.I.R. No. 111/10 registered for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 465, 467, 468 and 470 read with 34 Indian Penal Code. The petitioners herein are the accused. Respondent no.2 is the complainant, on whose statement the F.I.R. dated 28th March 2010 came to be recorded with Amboli Police Station. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that petitioner no.1 carries on business of selling motor vehicles in the name and style “Panchal Motors”, as proprietor. Petitioner no.2 is his employee. Respondent no.2, on 24th November 2008 purchased Innova Motor Car bearing registration No.MH-15 BN 6432 from petitioner no.1 for the consideration of Rs. 9,00,000/-. He paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to petitioner no.1 towards the price of the vehicle and the balance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was the amount of loan taken on the car. Respondent no.2, at the instance of 2 WP : 2767/2010 petitioner no.1 had given two cheques in the sum of Rs.21,232/- towards two instalments of the loan to facilitate transfer of loan to his name. After some days, petitioner no.1 demanded four blank cheques from respondent no.2 to facilitate the transfer of loan. Respondent no.1 had accordingly given four blank cheques drawn on account No.001101520238. Despite complying all the demands of petitioner no.1, he neither got the vehicle transferred to the name of respondent no.2 nor handed over the documents of the vehicle. Then it was agreed between two that respondent no.2 instead of Innova car would purchase Pajero Motor car bearing No.MH-12 DY-7773 for the consideration of Rs.14,50,000/-. Part of that consideration, i.e. a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- was to be paid in cash and part i.e. Rs.7,00,000/- by way of sale of a flat in the building at Lonavala being constructed by the respondent no.2. Accordingly the respondent no.2 returned the Innova car and took possession of Pajero motor car. But even in respect of the second car, petitioner no.1, despite demands, failed to handover documents to respondent no.2. On 13th June 2009, respondent no.2 had taken the car to Lonavala from where it was stolen. When respondent no.2 was to lodge a complaint about theft of car, petitioner no.1 produced xerox copy of R.C. book of Pajero vehicle and the complaint of theft was registered with Lonavala Police Station vide C.R. No.65 of 2009. 2. On 15th June 2009, petitioner no.1 offered Innova car to respondent no.2 who agreed to accept the same. On that day, while handing over the car, petitioner no.2, obtained signature of respondent no.2 on a piece of paper as a delivery note. Few days thereafter, respondent no.2 realised that the six cheques given by him to petitioner no.1 at the time of purchase of 3 WP : 2767/2010 Innova car had been misused by him for withdrawing a total sum of Rs. 6,84,928/- from his bank Account no. 001101520238. He, therefore, filed the complaint alleging that the petitioners have forged his signatures on four blank cheques handed over and withdrawn money from his bank account. 3. Mr. Saraogi, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the agreements executed by respondent no.2 dated 25th November 2008 and MoU dated 16th June 2010 would show that there is no offence committed by the petitioners. The complaint does not refer to these agreements. It refers only to the agreement dated 23rd May 2009. The agreement relied upon by the petitioners makes no mention of any of the six cheques. Therefore, this agreement can be of no assistance to the petitioners to establish that there is no offence committed by the petitioners. Mr. Saraogi next submits that in any case, no offence can be said to have been committed by Petitioner no.2, who is only an employee of petitioner no.1. Since the complaint makes specific allegations against both the petitioners that they forged signature of respondent no.2 on four cheques and withdrawn substantial amounts from the bank account of respondent no.2, it cannot be said that no offence is disclosed in the complaint against them. Hence, the petition is dismissed. (Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J)