:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETRITION NO. 234 OF 2001 Mrs. Rina Antony. ..Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents. None for the Petitioner. Mr. Rajesh More, APP. for the State. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATED : 15.4.2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard A.P.P. Mr.Rajesh More for the State and perused the record. 2. This petition is filed by the original accused No.4 in Criminal Case No.308 of 1999 pending in the court of J.M.F.C. Pune to quash and set aside an order issuing process dated 2.9.1999 passed in the aforesaid criminal case No.308 of 1999. Perusal of the order dated 2.9.1999, it appears that process has been issued against the accused Nos. 1 to 5 for the offence under Section-3,4,5,10 and 11 read with Section 13 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act,1963 and Section 406 read with 34 of the I.P.C. On perusal of the complaint, it is clear that it was the complainant’s case that they were induced by the accused to invest money for booking a row house and MOU was executed in this regard. On 29.6.1998 a booking amount of Rs.1,25,000/- was also accepted by the accused under a receipt. The balance amount of Rs.5,60,000/- was payable in 80 instalments of Rs.7000/-each. Two instalments were accepted. :2: Thereafter, however, the complainant found that there was no work in progress relating to the row house. Then he sought to withdraw from the scheme by his letter dated 29.9.1998. He was persuaded to continue in the scheme by giving lessor EMI. Even thereafter, no proper development was done. By Notice dated 17.5.1999, the complainant sought withdrawal from the scheme. In response thereto the accused sent notice dated 3.6.1999 terminating the MOU. It was the grievance of the complainant that inspite of such termination amounts paid to the accused were not returned and attempt was made to encash some further cheques. It appears to be the contention of the petitioner that she was involved in the complaint illegally. Perusal of the complaint indicates that she has been joined in the capacity as Manager. There is an averment in Para-2 to that effect. Whether she was actually Manager or not which is a question of fact which can only be gone into at the time of trial. The complainant makes out a prima facie case. Hence, there is no substance in the petition. The petition is rejected. It is made clear that the observations made in this order should not be used at the time of the trial of the case and the Trial Court will decide the matter on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence which will emerge at the time of trial. Rule is discharged. Petition stands disposed off. (R. S. MOHITE, J.)