1 WP-245-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 245 OF 2009 1. Bharat A. Patel ) Age 65 years, Occ: Business, ) R/at: 14/A, Hindu Colony, ) Opp. Sardar Patel Stadium, ) Navrange-Pura, Ahmedabad. ) 2. Snehal B. patel ) Age: 40 years, Occ: Business, ) R/at: 14/A, Hindu Colony, ) Opp. Sarar Patel Stadium, ) Navrange-Pura, Ahmedabad. ) 3. Mrs. Mridulaben B. Patel, ) Age: 63 years, Occ: Housewife, ) R/at 14/1, Hindu Colony, ) Opp. Sardar patel Stadium, ) Navrange-Pura, Ahmedabad. ) 4. Nishith B. Patel ) Age: 36 years, Occ: Business, ) Partner of VHS Electronics, ) having its Office: Maruti House, ) 5th Floor, Opp. Air India, ) Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. ).. Petitioners (Orig.Accused Nos.1 to 4) Vs. 1. State of Maharashtra ) (Through Sahar Police Station,Mumbai) 2. Mr. Basant Shamsunder Kabra ) Managing Director, ) Control Print (I) Ltd. ) C-106, Hid Saurashtra Indl. Estate. ) 2 WP-245-09.sxw Andheri Kurla Road, Marol Naka, ) Andheri (e), Mumbai 400 059. ).. Respondents (Resp.No.2 orig.Complt.) Mr. S.V.Marwadi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. A.A.Mane, APP, for the respondent no.1 State. Shri Sanjeev P. Kadam, Advocate, for the respondent No.2. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 29th July, 2010. JUDGMENT: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the complaint and the relevant documents. 2. The FIR was filed by the respondent No.2 - Managing Director of Control Prints (I) Ltd. on 27.1.2008 against the present petitioners at the Sahar Police Station, Mumbai. On the basis of that, crime No.116/2008 was registered under Sections 465, 467, 468, 472, 420 read with Sec. 34 IPC against all the petitioners. By this petition, the petitioners seek to quash the FIR. 3. On perusal of the FIR, it appears that the petitioner no.1 - Bharat A. Patel is the director of Hytaisun Magnetics Ltd. as well as VHS Electronics which are the private limited companies. Bharat Patel represented to Control Prints (I) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) that his company is in 3 WP-245-09.sxw business of video cassettes, video cassette tapes, roll etc. and that they used to purchase raw material for that purpose from foreign companies. He showed the balance sheet of both the companies showing that both the companies were doing good business and earning good profit. he also represented that Hytaisun Magnetics Ltd. had purchased certain goods under three different invoices and for payment they required amount of Rs.27,14,750/-. Relying on the documents produced by Bharat Patel, the complainant company agreed to advance loan. After deduction of interest in advance, the amount of Rs.24,98,757/- was actually paid by cheque. Bharat Patel issued a post dated cheque of Rs.27,14,750/- for repayment of the total loan amount including interest. The loan was repayable 3 months after the loan was advanced. Thereafter, Bharat Patel again represented to the complainant company that VHS Electronics had also purchased raw material under different invoices and the company was in need of Rs.22,09,925/- for claiming the goods. The necessary invoices were also shown to the complainant company. After deduction of interest for 3 months in advance, the complainant company paid amount of Rs.20,35,423/- by a cheque in favour of VHS Electronics and the cheque was actually handed over to Bharat Patel. Bharat Patel issued a cheque for repayment of Rs.22,01,925/-. It was post-dated cheque and it was bearing dated 25.07.1996. Both these cheques were dishonoured on presentation and case under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act came to be filed in the year 4 WP-245-09.sxw 1996. The FIR in the present case was filed on 27.1.2008 contending that on enquiry by the complainant company, it was revealed that the invoices which were produced by Bharat Patel for obtaining the loan were forged documents. The balance sheets of the two companies, which were shown to the complainant, were also not genuine. On enquiry by the complainant, it was also revealed that the parties from which the two companies of Bharat Patel had alleged purchased goods had never sold such goods to those two companies. It indicated that Bharat Patel and his companies had cheated the complainant company by producing false and forged documents. In the complaint it is stated that petitioner No.1 Bharat Patel, petitioner No.4 Nishith B. Patel, and petitioner No.3 Mrs. Mridulaben Patel were the directors of VHS Electronics while petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the directors of Hytaisun Magneics Ltd. The directors of both the companies are members of the same family. 4. On perusal of the FIR, it appears that all the transactions on behalf of two companies i.e. VHS Electronics & Hytaisun Magnetics Ltd. with the complainant company were entered into by petitioner No.1 Bharat Patel. All the representations were made by him and all the documents, including invoices, balance sheets, etc. were produced by him. He had represented to the complainant company about the need of money and he was the person who had 5 WP-245-09.sxw received the cheques for loan on behalf of both the companies and he was the person who had issued the cheques for repayment of the loan amount to the complainant company. No role in whole of the transactions is attributed to any of the petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4. There is no allegation that petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 had played any role in making false representation, in forging false documents, balance sheets or any other document on the basis of which the complainant company was cheated and was made to deliver money to those two companies. Therefore, merely because petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 happen to be the directors of these two companies, without any further act on their part, they cannot be held guilty for offences committed by petitioner No.1. The learned Counsel for the respondent-complainant also could not point out any material on the basis of which the FIR could have been lodged against petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 5. Taking into consideration all the material, while I find that petitioner No.1, prima facie, appears to be responsible for the commission of offence, there is no such material against petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Merely because they were the directors or they were members of the same family of petitioner No.1, they cannot be made accused in such a serious offence. Therefore, it is a fit case to quash the FIR as against petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 6 WP-245-09.sxw 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is partly allowed. The FIR lodged by the respondent No.2 stands quashed to the extent of petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The Investigating Officer may complete the investigation and take follow- up action as per law against petitioner No.1. 7. As and when any application comes before any Court, for granting bail or anticipatory bail or for framing of charge etc. such application shall be heard and disposed of on its merit without being influenced by any observations made in this order. Rule made absolute accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)