1 Cri.WP No.607/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.607/2011. 1) Makrand s/o Khushalchand Yambal & Anr. = PETITIONERS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra = RESPONDENT Mr.Anil H.Kasliwal, Adv. for Petitioners; Mr.VD Godbharale, APP for State ----- CORAM : A.H.JOSHI & A.R.JOSHI,JJ. DATE : 8th September, 2011. PER COURT : 1) By this petition, the petitioners are claiming that the F.I.R., lodged by Shivhar Sudam and Shankar Laxman Aakmar, be quashed. 2) Perusal of F.I.R. discloses that according to the complainants, they had purchased insurance policies of Bajaj Allianze through the petitioners and had deposited, in three instalments within three years, a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. According to them, the petitioners had promised that after three years they would receive refund of the amount of Rs.30,000/-, 2 Cri.WP No.607/2011 which they shall deposit towards premium and the policy would remain in force. On enquiry, they came to know that the refund of amount would be only Rs.15,000/- and their insurance policy would come to an end. 3) At this juncture, they came to know that in fact, wife of petitioner no.1 is the agent of insurance company and the petitioners have cheated them. 4) The petitioners want that the F.I.R. be quashed on following grounds :- (a) That, the policies are due for maturity only in 2024; (b) Insurance agent is petitioner No.1's wife; (c) No cheating, whatsoever, is done by his wife. (d) The contents of complaint do not disclose commission of offence as alleged. 5) On hearing learned Advocate Mr.Kasliwal and upon perusal of the complaint and other documents, we find that what is cheating according to the complainants is what was represented to them. 6) Be it that the petitioners version is 3 Cri.WP No.607/2011 true and it may reveal, during investigation, that no cheating has taken place. In such eventuality, charge sheet may not be filed. Therefore, all these are the matters which shall surface either way upon completion of investigation. At this stage, it would be premature to arrive at the conclusion that the accused had not at all misrepresented and cheated to the complainants. 7) We are satisfied that it is not necessary to entertain the petition. 8) The petition is dismissed. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.H.JOSHI,J.) bdv/