IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPLICATION NO. 560 OF 2009 Sandeep Bhatia ..... ..... ...Applicant. V/s The State of Maharashtra ..... ... ..Respondent. Mr.A.P.Mundargi i/by Mr.M.S.Mohite, Adv. for the Applicant. Mr.S.V.Marwadi, Adv. for the respondent. Ms.Revti Mohite-Dere, Adv. For orig. complainant. Ms.S.V.Gajare, APP for the State. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. 11th March, 2010. PC: This writ petition challenges the concurrent orders passed by learned JMFC, Court No.6, Pune below Exs. 38 and 45 in RCC No. 109/2000 dated 6.1.2006 thereby rejecting the application filed by the Applicant for discharge and the order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pune dated 3.12.2008 thereby dismissing the revision application filed by the present Applicant. The Applicant has approached this Court in its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. 2. On the basis of information report lodged by respondent No.2 herein Crime No.76/99 was registered by Khadki police station for the offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 34 of IPC. The allegations of the complainant in nutshell is that the accused persons in collusion with each other have represented the shares of one European Software Company to be genuine though they are fraudulent and that said shares were sold 1 through the complainant for which the accused had received an amount of Rs.28,59,550/- and therefore had cheated the complainant. 3. After the completion of investigation and on the basis of material available charge sheet came to be filed. The applicant along with other accused filed application for discharge. Same was rejected. A revision challenging the same also was dismissed. Hence the present application. 4. Mr.Mundargi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that there are no allegations against the applicant in the entire charge sheet so as to establish the complicity of the present applicant for the offence with which he is charged. He therefore submits that proceedings against the present applicant are liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. Mr.Marwadi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2-complainant submits that there is ample material so as to prima facie establish the involvement of the present applicant with the crime in question and no interference is warranted in the concurrent orders. 6. Both the courts below have concurrently held that upon consideration of evidence collected by the prosecution only if it is found that the charges are groundless accused can be discharged. The learned revisional court by its well reasoned judgment has found that there was sufficient material so as to prima facie establish involvement of the applicant with the crime in question. It has been found that the applicant was signatory to certain cheques issued on behalf of European Software Company Limited as its authorised signatory. It has also been found that the 2 applicant was signatory to agreement between Royal Star Investments Pvt. Ltd. And Kishore Kantilal Gandhi. Learned revisional court therefore found that it was not a case where there was no material at all against the present applicant to proceed with the trial. 7. While invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code it will be permissible to quash the proceedings only if it is found that there is no material at all to prima facie establish the complicity of the accused with the crime in question. An enquiry as to whether material relied upon by the prosecution is sufficient enough to convict the accused or not would not be permissible at this stage. 8. No perversity is noticed in the approach of both the Courts below to warrant interference. Hence application stands rejected. 11.3.2010. 3