cran12.11 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 12 OF 2011 Aneel Atmaram Thakre ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and another ...Respondents ..... Mr. S.S. Salve, advocate for the applicant Mr. G.R. Ingole, A.P.P. for respondent No. 1 Mr. A.B. Kale, advocate for respondent No.2 ..... CORAM: A.V. POTDAR, J. DATED: 7TH APRIL, 2011 PER COURT:- 1 By the present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the applicant, who is accused in crime No. 170 of 2010, registered in Shahada police station for the offence punishable under Section 420 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. has approached this Court to quash and set aside the said crime to the extent of the applicant. 2 I have heard learned counsel for the applicant so also learned A.P.P. for the respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2. I have also perused the complaint on the basis of which the said offence came to be registered in Shahada police cran12.11 -2- station. 3 The substance of the complaint that even though the company working under the name and style as “Aryarup Tourism and Club Resorts Pvt. Ltd.” has closed down its entire business under the order of the Government on 22.7.2010, allured the complainant and others to invest heavy amount and for the said amount had assured them nice interest to be earned on the amount invested with further assurance that if the company will not repay the interest so also the amount invested, then they give personal guarantee that the personally they will repay the amount to the investors. The complaint further discloses that under the promise and assurance given by the applicant and one Vishwas Hanumant Salunkhe the applicant has invested an amount of Rs.11,50,000/- which on enquiry appears to be not credited to the account of the company but was invested in the account of said Vishwas Salunkhe, as the company was already closed down. 4 Relying on the observations of this Court in the matter of Ravi Ratan Badlani Vs. State of Maharashtra (2007 Crimes (2) 177), it is tried to urge on behalf of the applicant that there is no dishonest intention to cheat the applicant by alluring the complainant to invest the amount in the finance company, as the finance company is in loss cran12.11 -3- and hence not able to repay the amount invested so also the interest agreed upon for which the applicant himself not be held liable. His next submission is that on plain reading of complaint it do not constitute the offence as it do not satisfy the ingredient of offence under Section 420 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. 5 Mere perusal of the averments in the complaint, it clearly demonstrate that at the inducement of the applicant the complainant has parted with an amount of Rs.11,50,000/- which was deposited in the account of Vishwash Salunkhe, who is co-accused in crime. This fact itself shows that there was inducement at the hands of the present applicant to deliver movable property i.e. the amount in the sum of Rs. 11,50,000/-. Admittedly on the date when this amount was deposited in the said account, the company has already closed down its business on 22.2.2010. It clearly goes to show that this is wrongful loss caused to the complainant. Whether it is wrongful gain to the applicant or not, this is a matter of investigation. 6 At this juncture, it is useful to give reference to the observation in the matter of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and Anr. Vs. Datar Switchgear Limited and others (2010 (1)) SCC 479). While dealing with the consideration about application to be treated under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. it is cran12.11 -4- observed by the Apex Court in the said ruling that if the averments in the complaint, prima facie, discloses existence of offence for which the complaint is filed, in such case application for quashing of F.I.R. under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. not to be entertained. 7 On careful consideration of submissions advanced across the bar so also on careful perusal of the averments in the complaint, I find that it satisfies prima facie ingredients for commission of offence under section 420 r.w. 34 of I.P.C.. One more additional circumstance is that after anticipatory bail application of the applicant was rejected earlier, repeated applications were moved and the same came to be rejected and when this Court has called for report about progress of the arrest of the applicant, it is informed that the applicant is not available at the given address and investigation agency is not able to trace out his whereabouts. This is an additional circumstance, which indicate that the applicant is avoiding his arrest for the reasons known to him. For all these reasons such as avoiding of arrest and not to face interrogation, complaint prima facie, discloses offence about the role of the applicant etc. this application sans any merit and the same stands rejected accordingly. ( A.V. POTDAR. J.) rlj/