: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 APPEALLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.521 OF 2001 Dinkar Sakharam Kumbhar and ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. Balasaheb D. Desaui and anr. ..Respondents. Mr.S.A.Ingawale for the Petitioners. Mr.P.A.Pol, APP. for the State. Respondent No.1 absent though served. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATED : 09.4.2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The petitioners who are original accused Nos. 1 to 10 in Criminal Case No. 91/2000 pending in the court of J.M.F.C.Gargoti have filed this petition for quashing an order issuing process against the accused under Section-408,420 and 468 of the I.P.C. On perusal of the complaint it appears that the petitioner No. 1 is the Chairman of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Co.op. Credit Society, Petitioner No.2 is the Vice Chairman, Petitioner No.3 is the Manager, Petitioner No.4 is the Accountant, Petitioner No.5 is the Peon and Petitioner Nos. 6 to 10 are the Directors/Members of the said society. The complainant-Balasaheb Desai is the member of the society. He has filed a complaint dated 9.5.2000 before the Magistrate against the accused persons alleging that the accused persons have prepared false documents to cheat 385 members of the society. The complaint runs :2: into only two paragraphs and does not give details as to how the members have been cheated. It appears that enquiry under Section 156(3) was ordered by the J.M.F.C. and the Asstt. Police Inspector filed a report stating that there was meeting held on 8.12.1999 and the legal proceeding challenging the said meeting was dismissed upto the High Court. In spite of this, J.M.F.C. Gargoti has issued process on 27.9.2000.The petitioners filed revision before the Sessions Court and even though the Sessions Court came to the conclusion that the revision would not lie against the order being inter locutory order, it decided the case on merits. On perusal of the order of the revisional court it appears that even the revisional court has not taken into account the police report which clearly indicates that the meeting was held. Apart from that, I find that the original complaint is absolutely vague and there is no allegation as to how any offence can be said to have been committed. There is allegation that some documents have been fabricated by the accused to cheat 385 members. There is no reference or even any act of cheating alleged to have been committed by the petitioners. The police report clearly indicates that vague complaint was filed. They also investigated the complaint as to whether any meeting was held on 8.12.1999 and concluded that the allegations are untrue. In this view of the matter, petition deserves to be allowed. Petition is therefore allowed in terms of :3: prayer clause (a) and stands disposed off. (R. S. MOHITE, J.)