1 wp-3210-2010 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3210 OF 2010 Chandraprakash R. Tiwari ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents Mr.Bhavesh Parmar i/b. Ms.Sandhya Mailagir and Devmani Shukla for petitioner. Mr.A.S.Gadkari, APP for State. Mr.V. Mannadiar i/b. M/s. Mannadiar & Co. for Resp.nos.3 to 5. Ms.Manasvi Joshi i/b. Mrs.Mugdha Jadhav for resp.no.6. Mr.Vishal Kolekar for resp.no.7. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. July 27, 2011. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr.Parmar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2 wp-3210-2010 2. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution a host of prayers from prayer clause (a) to prayer clause (u) have been set out and the substantial prayers are from prayer clause (a) to prayer clause (g) and the remaining prayers are for interlocutory orders. 3. The petitioner had borrowed an amount of Rs.44,577/- by way of a vehicle loan from the respondent no.3 – Bank on 27/10/2006 and he purchased the two wheeler vehicle which came to be hypothecated in favour of the said Bank. He committed a default in the EMI payment in December 2006. He also states that in the same month he met with an accident and along with his brother he was hospitalized. As per him the subject two wheeler i.e. bearing Registration No.MH-02-AW-2656 was stolen and, therefore, he made a claim for insurance. The respondent no.3 Bank sent a notice on 5th March 2008 recalling the loan. Obviously he had issued some cheque which got dishonoured and, therefore, the Bank issued a notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act and consequently in September 2008 filed a complaint under Section 138 of the said Act before the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction. On 31st October 2008 the Bank took possession of the two wheeler and informed him by letter dated 5th November 2008. The summons in the complaint under 3 wp-3210-2010 Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was served on the petitioner sometimes in March 2010 and he moved this petition towards the end of October 2010 i.e. after he received the summons. 4. His main case is that he has registered an FIR i.e. C.R.No.I-3 of 2007 on 2/1/2007 with Kasa Police Station, Dist. Thane alleging that his vehicle was stolen away and he prays for transfer of investigation to any other investigating agency of the State of Maharashtra. The other prayers have not been pressed. 5. As noted earlier, the events of borrowing the loan, default in payment of EMIs, possession of the two wheeler taken over by the Bank and the filing of the complaint for dishonour of cheque have been supported by the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent nos.3 to 5. Along with the said affidavits documents have been annexed including copies of the letters addressed to the petitioner by the Bank and there is no reason to disbelieve that the petitioner was aware about the vehicle being in possession of the lending bank. 6. Under these obtaining circumstances, we do not see any case for 4 wp-3210-2010 transfer of investigation to any other agency and any further enquiry against respondent nos.2 to 8. 7. Hence the petition is dismissed. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)