1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.359/2010 Applicant :- George Lukose Kutty, Aged about 56 Yrs., R/o C-11, Industrial Estate, Mul Road, Chandrapur 442 401. ...Versus... Respondent :- The State of Maharashtra Through Durgapur Police Station, Dist. Chandrapur. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri R.P. Joshi, Adv. for applicant] [Shri A.D. Sonak, APP for respondent] CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 02.03.2010 1. Learned Counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the applicant being Director of the Company cannot be even named in the F.I.R. either due to vicarious liability or otherwise and he relied on the following Supreme Court decisions. (i) 2009 (1) Supreme Court Cases 516 (R. Kalyani...Versus...Janak C. Mehta and others). (ii) 2009 (3) Supreme Court Cases 375 (Sharon Michael and others...Versus...State of Tamil Nadu and another). 2. The offence is said to have been registered on 26.1.2010 and the investigating machinery hardly have any time to find out the 2 truth on the strength of the F.I.R. In my opinion, whether the applicant is responsible directly or indirectly is a matter of investigation and at such premature stage, it cannot be imagined that the applicant being a Director of the Company cannot be involved in the offence alleged against him and others. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant contends that without investigation about the involvement of the applicant, F.I.R. could not have been registered against him. The submission is misconceived in view of the fact that cognizable offence is required to be taken note of and the offence is required to be registered as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The offence which is of theft is clearly cognizable and has to be investigated and for all these reasons therefore this Court is not inclined to interfere with the F.I.R. at such premature stage. 4. Criminal Application is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the applicant to move this Court or the proper Court after completion of investigation. 5. Investigation is expected to be completed within a period of thee months from today. Criminal Application stands disposed of. JUDGE SSW