1 CriA-2903-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2903 OF 2009 Mr. Vinodrao Wamanrao More & Anr. ... Petitioners vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents Mr.O.A.Siddiqui, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. S.V.Gajare, APP, for the respondent No.1 State. None for the respondent No.2. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 4th August, 2010. P.C. 1. On a complaint filed by Union Bank of India through Branch Manager, Koparkhairane Branch, Criminal Misc.Application No.282/2009 was registered in the Court of J.M.F.C. Vashi. It was alleged in the complaint that accused No.1 Vinodrao had approached the Bank for a housing loan of Rs.21 lakh for purchase of property worth Rs.34 lakh. Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 submitted the necessary documents and loan was sanctioned. Later on, payment was not made and it was revealed that accused persons had cheated the Bank and had taken loan on the basis of forged documents. The loan amount was not repaid. Therefore, the Bank filed the complaint under Sections 403, 405,406,409, 415, 417, 418, 420, 2 CriA-2903-09.sxw 421, 423, 424, 425,426,427, 463 to 467,475, 476, 477 read with Sec. 511 and 120B and 34 IPC and other sections under the Maharashtra Co-op. Societies Act and Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act. The learned Magistrate directed investigation under Sec. 156(3). That order is sought to be quashed by this applicant under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. 2. it is contended by the applicant that the application was filed by the Bank due to misunderstanding at the relevant time. He could not make the repayment of money, but he has already cleared all the Bank dues and nothing remains to be paid. He has also produced "No Dues certificate" dated 8.12.2009 from the complainant Bank. That certificate also reveals that the Bank had advised its Advocate to withdraw the proceedings before the DRT as well as the criminal case under Sec.138 N.I. Act and the Branch Office was also advised to release the title deeds of the applicant, if any. 3. The complainant respondent No.2 has been served and one Advocate A.H. Patil has also filed Vakilpatra for respondent No.2, but when the matter is called, none appears for respondent No.2. On the previous date, the prosecution was directed to take instructions from the Bank about this application. Ms. Gajare, learned APP, on written instructions from the senior P.I. of 3 CriA-2903-09.sxw Koparkhairane Police Station, makes a statement that the Branch Manager of the Bank has orally told the police officer that there are no dues of the Bank against the accused persons, but he was not in a position to make a written statement. 4. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it appears that the criminal case was filed only because the loan advanced by the Bank was not repaid. Now,it appears that the Bank has received whole of its amount and nothing is due . Investigation is nt yet completed. In such circumstances, no purpose will be served by continuing with the investigation under Sec.156(3) Cr. P.C. 5 For the aforesaid reasons, in the interest of justice, the impugned order to hold investigation under Sec. 156(3) Cr. P.C. stands quashed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)