crwp-317-11.doc jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 317 OF 2011 Sunil Jabarchand Modi ..Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents Mr. U.P.Warunjikar along with Mr. S.H.Yadav for petitioner Mr. Ravi Kadam Advocate General along with Mr. A.S.Gadkari A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 Mr. S.S.Patwardhan for Respondent No.4 Mr. Sandip Owale i/b Udwadia and Udeshi for Respondent No.5 CORAM : S.A.BOBDE AND SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J J. RESERVED ON : NOVEMBER 28, 2011. DECLARED ON : DECEMBER 08, 2011. P.C.[PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Advocate General for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned Counsel for the R.B.I. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the former and existing directors and officers of Kolhapur District Central Co- Operative Bank Ltd. have committed misfeasance and mis- management of the affairs of the Bank. According to him, there are serious irregularities in many spheres by earlier as well as the existing directors of the Bank inter alia the 1 crwp-317-11.doc Rules were not followed by them, loans were granted and disbursed without security to many persons, loans were disbursed by disregarding the norms, so also the dividends were given against the norms. Hence, the prayer of the petitioner is that direction be given to the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to file necessary FIR against the Directors and Officers of the said bank under Sections 405, 406, 408, 415, 416, 417, 418, 420, 463, 464, 465, 467 and 468 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. Mr.Warunjikar contended that filing of a private complaint would not serve any purpose because many of the persons involved are highly influential persons. He submitted that in these circumstances, the best course would be that directions be issued to the police to register FIR. We find no merit in this submission because even if a private complaint is filed and if the Magistrate finds some substance in the complaint, he would normally pass an order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. i.e. directing police to investigate the matter, hence, end result would be the same because even if FIR is lodged, police would investigate the matter and if the Magistrate issues directions under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the police would investigate the matter. 2 crwp-317-11.doc 4. The Supreme Court in the case of Aleque Padamsee and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2007) 6 SCC 171, has held that if information is given to the police regarding commission of cognizance offence and no action is taken by the police then proper remedy is to file a complaint before the concerned Magistrate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically observed that in such a case a writ petition is not to be entertained as there is a remedy available of filing a complaint before the Magistrate. The Supreme Court disposed of the writ petition with the following direction: “If any person is aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials in registering the FIR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code are to be adopted and observed.” 5. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, it would be open to the petitioner to file a private complaint before the concerned Magistrate. 6. In addition we may also state that the learned Counsel for R.B.I. assured the Court that R.B.I. will look into the matter and if anything adverse is found against any of the parties, 3 crwp-317-11.doc they will take necessary action under part IV of the Banking Regulation Act. 7. In view of the above facts, writ Petition is disposed of. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [ S.A.BOBDE, J. ] 4