- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.37 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.37 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.37 OF 2009 Jyothi Velingkar Sanjay Velingkar ...Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Raja Thakare i/b Mr.A.M.Chimalkar for the petitioner Ms S.V.Gajre A.P.P. for State Mr.Amol Faujdar for the 2nd and 3rd respondent Mr.V.K.Nair for 4th respondent Mr.S.K.Shinde for the 5th respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : APRIL 23,2009 : APRIL 23,2009 : APRIL 23,2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. This is a petition for quashing proceeding of the Special Case against the petitioners. The charges have been framed against the petitioners and other co-accused including the respondent nos.2 and 3 for offences punishable under section 120-B, 409, 420, 467,468,471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and section 13 (2) r/w 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. The prayer in this petition is for quashing the proceedings. 2. Reliance has been placed on the proceeding of the disciplinary enquiry initiated by the employer of the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that in the said enquiry, the second respondent who is a co-accused has taken up the entire responsibility on his own shoulders and has - 2 - stated that the present petitioners and the third respondent are innocent. It is submitted that the second respondent has returned the entire amount to the bank. It is submitted that the proceedings of the disciplinary enquiry would reveal that there is absolutely no mens rea on the part of the petitioners. He submitted that the petitioners cannot be forced to face the trial. 3. I have considered the submissions. It is not in dispute that the trial has already been started and the second witness of the prosecution is being examined. Apart from that charge has been framed for the offence punishable under the said Act of 1988. The basic contention of the petitioners is that the 2nd respondent who is co-acuseed has accepted the entire responsibility and has stated in the disciplinary proceeding that the other accused are innocent. 4. Looking to the nature of the charges against the petitioners, only on the basis of what is brought on record in the disciplinary proceedings, the proceedings before the Special case cannot be quashed. Hence, no case is made out for interference at this stage. Petition is rejected. All contentions of the petitioners on merits are expressly kept open. - 3 - JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE