1 2071.10-wp bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2071 OF 2010 Viraf Nadir Sodawaterwala ..Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.Vijendra S. Jabra for petitioner. Smt.Poonam Bhosale, APP for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms.Dimple shah for respondent No.3. CORAM : N.D.DESHPANDE,J. DATED : DECEMBER 3, 2010 P.C.: Heard both the sides. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.3 who is the daughter of deceased original complainant. The petitioner is facing prosecution for various charges of cheating, fraud etc. on a complaint of a deceased mother of respondent No.3. Main contention of the petitioner is that it is a “private party dispute” and there is nobody now to prosecute the petitioner and the present respondents are not serious about it. There is nothing on record to accept the case of the petitioner that the witness i.e. daughter of the original complainant (deceased) and others are not interested and do not want to support the prosecution in the event of Trial. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner is facing trial for serious, non bailable and non- compoundable offences before the competent court. No doubt, any trial would cause some hardship to the accused who is presumed to be innocent, but his interest is protected by various provisions of the Cr.P.C. viz. granting bail on furnishing bail bond, exemption from personal attendance during the trial through lawyer etc. There is a growing tendency, and it is noticed that after 2 2071.10-wp releasing on bail even in non-compoundable and serious offences, bail is misused by accused who then file one of such petitions for quashing, on one or the other similar grounds. No decision can be taken in haste when a charge sheet is filed before the Trial Court, pending hearing on the point of charge. Economic Offences Wing deals with economic offences which are considered as serious in city like Bombay, where Economic Offences Wing is established. Therefore every case will have to be decided on its merits. 3. Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. declares “Inherent powers of the High Court”. While exercising these powers, it should be seen that any order passed under Section 482 should be such which would secure the “ends of justice”. Though the offence has been registered on a complaint of deceased mother of respondent No.3, it is the prosecution at the instance of EOW. The officer of EOW is present in the Court. He says that it is the case of cheating of Rs.87 lacs arising out of the shares transactions. As stated above, complainant is no more and as the complaint is at the instance of the EOW, the EOW is pursuing the same. In view of the above fact situation, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution case be quashed and set aside. In support of his submission, he relied on two Supreme Court judgments i.e. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others (2008) 16 SCC 1 and Nikhil Merchant Vs. CBI (2008) 9 SCC 677. 4. No doubt, the High Court’s power under Section 482 knew no bounds, The powers can only be exercised when the circumstances so demand. It cannot be invoked for quashing only on the say of the petitioner who is accused. Such should be the demand from all the concerned, including prosecution and investigating agency. The Trial Court is competent court to administer criminal justice. No evidence can be properly appreciated unless it is tested in a trial. The material and the evidence is found in the charge sheet. We find some evidence which could be accepted to decide his application. It is true that, even in cases of non compoundable offences, the High Court may quash the proceedings in exercise of powers as mentioned hereinabove. In my opinion, such discretionary power can not be used in the present case for the above reason. 3 2071.10-wp 5. Upon consideration of the record and after hearing all the concerned parties, no case is made out for quashing and setting aside as prayed. It is informed that trial is at the stage of framing of charge. The petition, therefore, stands dismissed. This order be communicated to the EOW and the Trial Court. (N.D.DESHPANDE,J.)