FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.456 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2009 [ V/S.] _____________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Coram, appearances, Court s orders : ’ or directions and Registrar s’ : Court s or Judge s orders ’ ’ orders : _____________________________________________________________________________________ Mr.Kuldeep Patil for applicant Ms.A.T.Jhaveri APP CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 8th JANUARY, 2010. PC :- 1. Heard. Mr.Patil for applicant and learned APP for State. The only contention raised before me in support of this application to quash the F.I.R. (Cr.No.304/08) is that the applicant/ petitioner is not involved in the alleged offences in any manner. He has not taken any loan from any bank nor is he a party to the sanction of bogus loans. Petitioner was not present in any meetings when the alleged bogus loans were passed. These are the averments in para 4 of the petition. Therefore, it is urged by Mr.Patil that the petitioner was elected as a Director of the bank for the first time in August 2006. He or his relatives have never applied or obtained any loans from the bank. He has not played any role and is not responsible for any transactions as mentioned in the FIR. He places reliance upon an order passed in case of two accused Subhash Pawar and Vijay Konde and states that a copy of the said order dated 8th December 2008 passed by this Court, if perused, would demonstrate that the applicant s petitioners case is on par with that ’ of the co-accused. 2. It is not possible to accept any of these contentions. This Court in its order passed on 8th December 2008 in Criminal Application No. 4859 of 2008 and 3334 of 2008 observed that neither of the applicants were present in any meeting wherein the decision to disburse the loan amount was taken. It is further clear that both these applicants were neither proposers nor seconders for any of the loans. Upon the statements made by Mr.Patil I called upon learned APP to produce the very material which was before the learned Single Judge. She has produced the extracts of the minute book and the members attendence register. From a bare perusal thereof, it is apparent that the petitioner is a director of the bank and he was present at several meetings of the said board. His name is there so also his signature. Further he has executed bonds. This is not a case on par with the co-accused who had never attended any meetings. It is not possible to agree with Mr.Patil at this stage that merely because the petitioner was elected at a later stage or that his relatives were not beneficiaries that the FIR deserves to be quashed as it is an abuse of the process of the Court. 3. In cases where a cooperative bank is defrauded to the extent of nearly Rs.38 Crores and there is involvement of the Directors and their relations and the charge is very grave and serious in nature that the investigations should be permitted to go on unhampered and uninterrupted. Ultimately, the question of accountability of persons functioning as Directors of Cooperative Bank is involved. If the allegations in the FIR are perused as a whole, it is not possible to agree with Mr.Patil that the petitioner is not involved in the offence alleged in any manner. There is prima facie case against the petitioner. Application is therefore devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.)