1 (Cri appln 769 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 769 OF 2010 Sunil Shankar Pawar ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ----- Mr.Sandeep S. Salunkhe for Applicant Mrs.M.R. Tidake -APP for the State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED:26TH NOVEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant. 2. The Applicant has filed this application for quashing a criminal complaint filed against him for the offence under sections 406, 409, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which was registered vide. C.R. No. 304 of 2008 dated 2.8.2008. The complaint was filed by the Special Auditor, Co-operative Societies, Pune against the Directors and the staff of Ajit Sahakari Bank. In the complaint, it is alleged that the Directors and the staff had conspired together and caused loss to the bank to the tune of more than Rs.34 crores. The Applicant is one of the Directors of the company. It is 2 (Cri appln 769 of 2010) submitted that one of the other Directors, who had played the similar role as that of the present Applicant, the complaint filed against him is quashed in Criminal Application No. 3334 of 2008 by order December 8, 2008 (Coram: Smt. V.K. Tahilramani J.). It is submitted that the Applicant had never sanctioned any amount and disbursed the loan and he was in noway responsible for the loss caused to the bank. In the affidavit in reply in paragraphs 8 and 9, it is alleged that the Special Auditor after making enquiry, has observed that several illegalities / irregularities were committed by the Directors, as a result of which, huge loss of Rs.34 crores was caused to the bank. In paragraph 9, it is averred that the Petitioner along with other accused with a malafide and dishonest intention had made an attempt to create false record and had used the same for misguiding the depositor and investor of the bank. 3. Taking into consideration the aforesaid allegations which are made against the Applicant, it is not possible to accept the contentions raised by the Applicant. 4. The learned counsel for the Applicant has urged 3 (Cri appln 769 of 2010) that the role played by the present Applicant and the role of the other directors is similar and, therefore, the Applicant is also entitled to get an order of quashing the complaint. 5. I am unable to accept the said submission. The said directors appears to have been released in view of the facts of the said case. The affidavit in reply filed by the State clearly reveals the role played by the Applicant. Therefore, no prima facie case is made out by the Applicant. 6. After the order was dictated, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant now submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this application. 7. The request made by the Applicant is declined since the matter was heard fully and after the order was dictated, this request was made. 8. Hence, application is dismissed. (V.M. KANADE J.)