1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 137 OF 2010 Balaji Singh Teeka & others ........Applicants versus The State of Maharashtra and anr.........Respondents. Mr. Shirish Gupte i/b M/s. Mulla & Mulla & CBC adv. for the Applicants. Mr. D.J. Khambata i/b. Dutt Menon Dunmorr Seet adv. for the Respondent no.2. Mr. A.S. Shitole APP for State. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : 15th February, 2010. P.C.: 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The applicants have approached this court for quashing and setting aside the criminal proceeding initiated by Crime No. 153/2009 by DCB CID (initially vide crime No. 25 of 2009 of Yellow Gate Police Station). 3. Mr. Shirish Gupte the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that the proceedings which are initiated at the instance of respondent no.2 have been initiated only with malafide and malicious intention. It is submitted that the 2 dispute is purely of civil nature between the parties and from the perusal of the material on record it will reveal that there is a serious dispute of civil nature which is sought to be converted into a criminal case. 4. Mr. Khambata the Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2, on the contrary, submitted that the parameters in which the criminal proceedings can be quashed are well settled in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & ors. Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and ors. Reported in AIR 1992 S.C. 604 and thereafter in series of judgments. It is submitted that present case does not fall within any of the parameters and as such petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. The FIR which is registered at the instance of respondent no.2 is for offences punishable under section 420, 406 & 384 of IPC and sections 65 and 66 of the of the Information Technology Act. By now it is settled position of law that while considering an application for quashing of proceedings under section 482 of Cr.P.C. the court has to exercise the powers sparingly and only in exceptional cases. It is further settled position of law, that at this stage, the court would be required only to consider the matter as is reflected in the complaint. Perusal of the complaint would reveal that atleast prima facie the ingredience to constitute an offence for which a complaint is filed are present in the complaint. The question as to whether the allegations are true or false cannot be gone into at this stage. Equally the material which is sought to be 3 placed on record by the applicants, which is voluminous in nature, cannot be gone into for the purpose of considering as to whether a case has been made out or not. 6. The learned APP on instructions, has made a statement that the investigation is still in progress, various statements have been recorded and it will take sometime for the police to complete the investigation and decide as to whether a case is made out for filing the charge sheet. 7. In these circumstances, I do not find that this is a fit case wherein the court can exercise its jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings. However, from the nature of allegations and the material which is placed on record by both the sides, I am of the considered view that the custodial interrogation of the accused is not necessary in the present case. It is nobody’s case that the accused are trying to flee away from the ends of justice. One of the applicant is situated at Singapore. I therefore find that it will not be in the interest of justice to arrest the applicants, however, on the condition that the applicant shall make themselves available for the purposes of investigation if so required by investigating agency. 8. In the result the application is dismissed in so far as the prayer for quashing is concerned. However at the same time, it is further directed that no co-ercive steps be taken against the applicants in so far as Crime No. 153/09 is concerned. It is further directed that the applicants, who are directors, residing in India, shall make themselves available for the purpose of investigation by 4 the investigating agency giving them 48 hours clear notice. In so far as the applicant who is situated in Singapore is concerned, he shall make himself available for investigation, on the investigating agency giving him seven days clear notice. 9. It is further made clear that the observations made herein above are purely for the purpose of considering the application of applicants for quashing the FIR. In case the investigating agency decides to file a charge sheet and the applicants desires to apply for discharge, the observations made herein would not be taken into consideration by the learned Judge who would be considering the application for discharge. 10. Needless to state that the applicants shall co-operate with the investigating agency and also submit necessary documents if required by the investigating officer. (B.R. Gavai, J.)