cran20.11 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2011 1 Ravindra s/o Ratanrao Sonawane Age 49 years, Occ. Auditor, R/o. Shevge Bk. Tq. Parola, District Jalgaon 2 Bhaskar s/o Ramlal Bhavsar, Age 48 years, Occ. Auditor, R/o. Audit Office, Co-op. Society Amalner, District Jalgaon ...Applicants Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector Police Station, Amalner, District Jalgaon 2 Dnaneshwar s/o Barku Mahajan, Age 66 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Mangal Nagar, Tade Pura Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon ...Respondents ..... Mr. Bharat R. Waramaa, advocate for the applicants Mr. N.R. Shaikh, A.P.P. for respondent No. 1 Mr. R.A. Birhade, advocate for respondent No.2 ..... CORAM: A.V. POTDAR, J. DATED: 30TH MARCH, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1 Heard learned counsel for respective parties. cran20.11 -2- 2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties heard finally at the stage of admission. 3 By the present application, filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the applicants, who are serving as auditors in the co-operative department, have approached this court to quash and set aside the F.I.R. No. 282 of 2010 registered with Amalner Police station, Amalner for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420 and 468 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. 3 During the course of submissions, Mr. Waramaa, counsel for the applicants drawn my attention towards the complaint lodged by second respondent before the learned J.M.F.C. Amalner. Criminal Misc. Application No. 202 of 2010 came to be filed against the present applicants and 22 other persons, who are/were present as well as ex- office bearers of one Dr. Hedgewar Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Amalner. Counsel for the applicants urged that the applicants were appointed by the Co-operative department for auditing the accounts of the said Patsanstha for the accounting years 2006-2009. He has drawn my attention towards the contents of complaint. The allegations against these applicants are in para 7 of the complaint, wherein the averments are that while conducting the audit of the accounts of the said Patsanstha, no objection were raised cran20.11 -3- by the applicants for charging extra interest by 1% on the loan sanctioned in favour of second respondent/complainant. According to the second respondent (original complaint) this amounts to an offence punishable under Section 120-B, 420, 468 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. 4 It appears that after the said complaint was lodged in the court of learned J.M.F.C. Amalner, the learned J.M.F.C. had passed an order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. thereby issuing directions to the police to carry out investigation. In view of this direction, an offence came to be registered vide C.R. No. 282 of 2010 with Amalner police station, district Jalgaon, wherein alongwith others, the present applicants were arrayed as accused Nos. 23 and 24 and after these applicants came to know about lodging of said complaint, they have approached this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash and set aside the said F.I.R. against them. 5 The law is clear on the point as to when this Court to interfere by way of passing order of quashing and setting aside the F.I.R. It is observed in catena of judgments by the Apex Court that on clear perusal of the contents in the complaint at the initial stage, this court need not exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash and set aside the F.I.R. But if on the plain reading of the F.I.R. if it is found that the same do not prima facie disclose any cran20.11 -4- offence, it is fit case where the High court to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction to quash and set aside such F.I.R. 6 Initially after this application was moved before this Court, directions were given to the first respondent State to place on record the investigation papers/report carried out till that date. Accordingly, in response to that notice, the prosecution have filed affidavit of one Devendra Tukaram Patil, A.P.I. attached to Amalner police station, to whom investigation in the said C.R. No.282 of 2010 registered with Amalner police station was entrusted. In his affidavit, the deponent has stated in para 9 that after thorough investigation, no evidence has been found in respect of commission of offence by the present applicants. It is further stated that they are still investigating the crime and seeking legal opinion to file appropriate proceedings before concerned J.M.F.C. At this stage, it is important to note that the complaint is silent about role attributed to these applicants to complete audit of account of the said Patsanstha, and therefore, the same will not constitute any offence under section 120-B of I.P.C. These applicants were neither entrusted any property nor they have used any forged documents while auditing the accounts of the said Patsanstha. Considering this aspect, neither there are specific averments constitute the offence about the role played by these applicants. Hence, this is fit case where this Court to exercise extra ordinary cran20.11 -5- jurisdiction to quash and set aside the F.I.R. 7 In the result, criminal application succeeds. F.I.R. against these applicants vide C.R. No. 282 of 2010 lodged with Amalner police station, District Jalgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. liable to be quashed set aside. Accordingly the same is quashed and set aside as against the present applicants. 8 Rule made absolute in the terms indicated above. Criminal application stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. *****