vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NOS.827 TO 836 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NOS.827 TO 836 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NOS.827 TO 836 OF 2008 Shri Shivkumar S. Iyer ... Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents Mr.S.V. Marwadi i/b O.A. Das for Petitioner Mr.D.P. Adsule, APP, for Respondent - State Ms.Manorama Mohanty with Ms.Gayatri Sharma i/b S.K. Srivastava & Co. for Respondent No.2 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. DATED: APRIL 17, 2008 APRIL 17, 2008 APRIL 17, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner accused No.7. It is contended that there are no allegations contained against the accused No.7 who in any case had resigned from the company in 2000. It is contended that in view of the decisions in Vinod Hingorani v/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2008, ALL MR (Cri.) 687, 2008, ALL MR (Cri.) 687, 2008, ALL MR (Cri.) 687, Sabitha Ramamurthy & Anr. v/s. RBS Channabasavaradhya, (2007) (2007) (2007) 1 SCC (Cri.) 621; 1 SCC (Cri.) 621; 1 SCC (Cri.) 621; N.K. Wahi v/s. Shekhar Singh & Ors., (2007) 2 SCC (Cri.) 203 (2007) 2 SCC (Cri.) 203 (2007) 2 SCC (Cri.) 203; Saroj Kumar Poddar v/s. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., (2007) 2 SCC (Cri.) 135, (2007) 2 SCC (Cri.) 135, (2007) 2 SCC (Cri.) 135, S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v/s. Neeta Bhalla & Anr., (2007) 2 SCC (Cri.) 192 (2007) 2 SCC (Cri.) 192 (2007) 2 SCC (Cri.) 192 and Shishir B. Desai & Anr. v/s. Ceat Financial Services Ltd. & Anr., 2006 ALL MR 2006 ALL MR 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 2083, (Cri) 2083, (Cri) 2083, there is no need to proceed with the case : 2 : against accused No.7. In my opinion, this submission cannot be accepted at this stage to quash the proceedings against accused No.7. There are other allegations contained in the complaint indicating that accused No.7 was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of accused No.1 company and that accused No.7 alongwith accused Nos.2 to 6 had knowledge of the issuance of the cheques which were dishonoured. In para 7, there is also an indication that accused Nos.2 to 7 were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the day to day business of accused No.1. 2. In my view, it would not be proper to quash the proceedings against accused No.7 at this stage merely on the ground that there were some documents including Income Tax returns, Provident Fund slips, etc. showing that he was not in service with accused No.1 in 2006, when the cheques were issued. These documents would have to be proved before any orders are passed regarding the complicity of accused No.2. 3. Apart from this, the trial has already commenced and is to be completed within six months. I see no reason to quash the proceedings against accused No.2 at this stage. 4. Petitions rejected.