1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1708 OF 2009 Abhilash Mahadeo Patil & Anr. .. Petitioners V/s State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.U.R.Mankapure for the petitioners. Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the State. Mr.V.V.Purwant for Respondent No.2. CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 13TH JULY, 2009. P.C.: . In this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) and under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed that the FIR bearing CR No.219 of 2008 registered against them at Vishrambaug Police Station, Sangli for the offences punishable u/s.420, 511 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 & 4 of the Price Chits and Money Circulation Scheme Banning Act, 1978, be quashed. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. He submitted that the complaint does not make out any offence and hence deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel for the complainant, second respondent supported the petitioners and submitted that second respondent has committed a mistake by filing the present complaint. He submitted that the second 2 respondent has received the benefits under the scheme. Hence the complaint may be quashed. Learned APP opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. 3. Even though the complainant is supporting the petitioners, we are not inclined to quash this complaint. We are informed by learned APP that the chargesheet is filed. It is therefore not possible for us to consider the prayer for quashing the FIR. We have perused the chargesheet. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners scheme “999 Plus” has defrauded about 5200 persons. Under this scheme, if any person invests Rs.999/- for a period of 12 weeks, he is to get Rs.50,000/-. It prima-facie appears that several persons have invested money in the said scheme and have not received the benefits. The case against the petitioners is that they have defrauded the people to the tune of Rs.52 lakhs. In our prima-facie opinion therefore this complaint must be prosecuted because general public is concerned with the alleged fraud. 4. In this connection, reference be made to the Full Bench judgment of this court in Abasaheb Yadav Honmane V/s.State of Maharashtra and Ashwini Abasaheb Honmane, 2008 (2) Mh.L.J.856. In that case the Full Bench has held that under Section 482 of the Code the High Court can quash compoundable as well as non-compoundable offences. But it may be appropriate for the Court to examine the impact of such an order upon the system of administration of criminal justice and the social fabric. The Full Bench has further laid down that the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code should not be such as to harm 3 legitimate expectations of the people and the society, that the persons committing offence are expeditiously brought to trial and if found guilty are adequately punished. 5. We will have to view the present case in the light of the above observations. This case cannot be viewed as an individual dispute between the complainant i.e.the 2nd respondent and the petitioner. It has wide repurcussions on the society. Prima facie several persons appear to have been duped. Those persons expect the court to bring the culprits to book. Quashing such a complaint would demoralise people and their faith in the legal system will get eroded. We therefore cannot quash the present complaint. 6. Hence, the petition cannot be entertained. Petition is dismissed. 7. We however make it clear that it will be open to the petitioners to make application for discharge before the appropriate court. If such application is made, the court seized with such application shall deal with it in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made by us in this order, touching the merits of the case. ( SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.)