1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.401 OF 2010 Mr. Janardhan Babu Kotian .... Petitioner Vs. Mr. Bhalchandra Lalan Naik & Ors. .... Respondents Ms. Lishu Fen i/by Mr. Suresh Chandrashekhar for petitioner. Mrs. A.S. Pai, APP for State. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 5th July, 2011 P.C. 1. This petition seeks quashing of the order dated 7th February 2009 passed by the the Sessions Court discharging respondents from C.C.No.1167/S/04 for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 409, 424 and 425 Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief factual matrix of the case is that the applicant, the original complainant, was an employee of respondent no.3- Bank of Baroda. In the year 1993, he had obtained a staff housing loan to the extent of Rs.2,35,000/- from respondent no.3-Bank. In the course of the loan transaction, respondent no.3 had taken various documents from the petitioner including the original sale-deed between the CIDCO and him in respect of a flat purchased by him 2 and the original letter of possession given to him by CIDCO. It appears that when the petitioner needed to raise money urgently for the marriage of his niece by selling the flat, the original sale- deed was not available for handing over to the purchaser, the document being misplaced in the office of the bank. It is the allegations of the petitioner that respondents no. 1 and 2, who are the Senior Managers of respondent no.3 deliberately withheld the documents, causing wrongful loss to him. This was allegedly done by respondents no. 1 and 2 because of the union activities of the petitioner. 2. The trial Court had issued summons to the respondents and was of the opinion that there was sufficient material disclosed in the complaint for framing charge against the respondents. The order of the trial Court dated 8th May 2008 came to be challenged by the respondents by preferring Criminal Revision Application No. 734/2008 to the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge found that even the primary foundation of the case is very shaky and not even made out. The petitioner has not stated in the complaint that at the relevant time, respondents no.1 and 2 were working with Zaveri Bazar branch of respondent no.3 where the documents were handed over. Further the petitioner admitted in his cross-examination before framing of charge that neither of respondents no.1 and 2 were his immediate bosses or he had 3 applied to them for the loan or that he had handed over the documents to them. The Sessions Court therefore found that the essential ingredient of entrustment of the property is missing. As such the facts alleged do not make out any of the alleged offences. Perusal of the complaint and evidence fully supports the view of the Sessions Court. Hence, no interference is called for with the impugned order. The petition is dismissed. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)