1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2671 OF 2011 Ritesh S/o.Rampal Agarwal .. Petitioner V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.A.M.Saraogi for the petitioner. Mrs.S.D.Shinde, APP for the State. Mr.S.A.Borate, Police Inspector, EOW-Unit 3, present. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE: 29th November, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for State. The petition is for quashing of FIR No.234 of 2011 registered by Respondent No.1 at the instance of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. The investigation in respect of the said FIR has been transferred to the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), as is noticed from the order dated 15.11.2011 passed in W.P.No.2825 of 2011 and the companion petitions. The investigation has been taken over by the Police Inspector Mr.Borate of the EOW. 2. The argument before us is that the petitioner has not been named as accused in the FIR. This argument clearly overlooks that the petitioner has been named as accused on account of revelations 2 made during the investigation of the case. There can be no doubt that even if the name is not mentioned in the FIR, if the material to indicate complicity of such person comes on record during the investigation, it is always open to the Investigating Officer to name such person as accused subsequently including in the chargesheet which he would file upon completion of the investigation. The basis for naming the petitioner as accused, as is stated across the bar by learned APP on instructions, is the evidence collected during the investigation to indicate that the petitioner was working as an Accountant in the office of the accused and was responsible for transferring the amount in question in the account of the main accused and also availed of commission for discharging that job. In the light of such revelations, the petitioner has been named as accused by the Investigating Officer and is being proceeded according to law. 3. It is well established position that the action against the accused can be taken by the prosecution not only on the basis of the contents of the FIR, but also the other material collected during the investigation by the Investigating Officer. 4. Suffice is it to observe that no ground for quashing of FIR is 3 made out. No other contention is addressed before us. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in that case, the petition be disposed of with the observations that the finding recorded in this decision will not come in the way of the petitioner in pursuing other remedies. We have no difficulty in acceding to this request. 6. At the same time, we would observe that the prosecution would be free to proceed against the petitioner not only on the basis of the material collected so far, but even the other or further material to be collected in due course. 7. Petition is disposed of in the above terms. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)