1 wp2996.10 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2996 OF 2010 Alpa Arungore Alias Alpa Sohani. ....Petitioner Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Dombivali, Thane & ors. ....Respondents. Mr. V.G.Tamaskar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.P.Adsule, APP for Respondent No.1. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATED:- NOVEMBER 15, 2010. P.C. 1. Learned APP submits that Respondent No.4 is neither necessary nor proper party. Counsel for the Petitioner in all fairness accepts that position and undertakes to delete the Respondent No.4 from the array of the parties. Leave to amend as prayed granted. 2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is prayed that the FIR registered against the Petitioner being FIR I 260/90 dated 26th August, 2010 with police station Dombivali(East) Thane District be quashed and 2 wp2996.10 set aside. 3. Briefly stated, the Petitioner claims to be director of Celebral Education Private Limited. The complaint as filed is essentially against the Company who had taken deposits from the students, but eventually the classes were closed. The fees deposited by the students was not returned. It is in this backdrop, the complaint has been filed against the Company. The Petitioner has been named in the said complaint as accused, being one of the director of the said Company and nothing more. On this basis, it is argued that the proceedings qua the Petitioner cannot be continued further. At best, the complaint can be pursued against the company and not its director. In support of this submission, Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of M.A.A.Annamalai v/s. State of Karnataka & anr.[(2010) 8 SCC 524 and Behram Bomanji Dubash & ors. v/s. State of Karnataka[2010 Cri.L.J.3963]. 4. In our opinion, these decisions will be of no avail to the Petitioner. In the present case, after registration of the FIR investigation has been completed and chargesheet has already been filed in the concerned court. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner has been named as one of the accused in the said chargesheet for having committed offence punishable under section 420, 406 and 34 of 3 wp2996.10 I.P.Code. If the Petitioner has been named as one of the accused on account of her act of commission and omission for which section 34 of the I.P.C. has been applied, we fail to understand as to how the Petitioner can claim immunity. In other words, the criminal action would proceed against the Petitioner not in the capacity of simplicitor director, but also because of having taken part in the commission of the offence in question for which section 34 has been applied. 5. Counsel for the Petitioner however, submits that even in the chargsheet there is no tittle of material to indicate complicity of the Petitioner so as to justify the prosecution for having applied section 34 of I.P.Code. This argument however, will have to be pursued before the appropriate court and not in the present Petition. 6. In the circumstances, we dispose of this Petition, with liberty to the Petitioner to pursue such other remedy, as may be permissible in law which will have to be decided on its own merits, uninfluenced by the disposal of this Writ Petition. Ordered accordingly. (A.P.BHANGALE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)