* 1 * Cri.Appln.5633.2010 14.7.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5633 OF 2010 Mohammad Husain Akbar Sheikh ..... Applicant V/S. State of Maharashtra & anr. ...... Respondents Mr. Kedar J. Patil, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP for State. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 14th July, 2011. P.C. :- 1. This application is filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the FIR dated 7th September, 2010 lodged with Jath Police Station, Sangli at C.R. No. 136 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. 2. The complaint dated 17th September, 2010 is by one Maulani Imamso Nidoni-respondent no.2 alleging that the applicant herein and one Umar Farooq Abubkar Mujawar had represented to him and other * 2 * Cri.Appln.5633.2010 14.7.2011 persons about one lucky draw scheme by Balaji Marketting, Karad in the year 2008. Believing the word of the applicant, the complainant and others invested amounts in the scheme. Thereafter, in order to gain confidence of the investors, the applicant, paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards return of the investment by instalments of Rs.5,000/- per month. He further promised that he would be responsible for the return of the investment. The applicant had introduced Umar Farooq Abubkar Mujawar as the agent of Balaji Marketting, Karad to the first informant and others. When the first informant and other persons alongwith the applicant visited Farooq, he made further representations and induced them to invest further amounts in the various schemes. Sometime thereafter, the payment of instalments of returns suddenly stopped. When the first informant made enquiries with the applicant herein, he was told that the company had altered its website and as soon as the website is restored, the first informant and others will be receiving the returns of their investment. Since that time, both the applicant and Umar Farooq avoided to pay the amount of investment to the first informant. Farooq had given three cheques in the sum of Rs.50,000/- to the first informant. On making enquiries with the bank, the first informant learnt that there was no money in his bank account. On these facts, the police registered the complaint * 3 * Cri.Appln.5633.2010 14.7.2011 for the offence punishable under Section 420 and 406 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant, then submits that infact there were two earlier complaints filed with the police, one dated 7th April, 2010 and the other dated 17th March, 2011. The learned APP on instructions from the Investigation Officer who is present in the Court, states that the complaint dated 7th April, 2010 though tendered initially had been taken back by the complainant and in its place the statement dated 7th December, 2010 was given. As regards the complaint dated 17th March, 2009 neither a copy the same is produced nor any details thereof are given. In the circumstance, it cannot be said that the police have proceeded for investigation on a subsequent statement which cannot be treated as an FIR. 4. Considering the allegations made in the complaint, specifically made against the applicant it cannot be said, prima-facie, that the applicant is not connected with the offence alleged or that the complaint does not make out the ingredients of the offence alleged. The prosecution, therefore, cannot be scuttled at the threshold. Hence, the application is dismissed. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]