IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1768 OF 2007 Calm Consultants Pvt. Ltd. ...... ......Petitioner V/s Bank of Baroda & Anr. ...... ......Respondent. Mr.Munir Merchant, Adv. For the petitioner. Mr.A.A.Siddiqui i/by M/s.M.V.Kini & Co., Adv. For the R.No.1. Mr.R.F.Lambay, Counsel for Union of India. Mrs.M.H.Mhatre APP for the State. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 16/2/08 PC: CBI Special Case Nos.45 and 46 of 1996 have been filed against Amit Jhaveri who at the relevant time was a director with a power to operate bank account of Calm Consultants Private Limited. The said cases pertain to alleged misappropriation of public funds by the accused. In the said cases the company' s bank account was frozen upon a direction issued by CBI. After the investigation was completed CBI intimated the bank that the amount lying in the said account of Bank of Baroda in the name of the company has no connection with the amount of misappropriation which is the subject matter of Special Case Nos.45 and 46. The grievance is that the bank instead of returning the amount to the company has transferred the same to sundry 1 deposit account. The company thus in the above factual position moved an application bearing No.443/06 before the Special Judge seeking various directions against the bank. One of the direction was to command respondent No.3-Bank to re-credit the amount stolen from the account No.2073. The rejection of the said application has given rise to the filing of the present writ petition. It is clear from the record that the present controversy is wholly unconnected with the prosecution of Amit Jhaveri in special case Nos.45 and 46. An inter se dispute between the company and the bank is sought to be wrecked up in the said special case Nos.45 and 46. While rejecting the application the Special Judge has observed that it shall be open for the company to proceed before appropriate forum against the bank. Perused the order. Same does not call for interference in writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel appearing for the parties inform me that private complaint is also filed by the present petitioner against the bank and some of its officers touching the very same act or omission which is subject matter of present writ petition. The entitlement of the company to receive the amount and/or the neglect on the part of the bank to return the amount to the company is a dispute wholly falling outside the scope of main cases and thus cannot be resolved by adjudicating the present writ petition. Hence writ petition is dismissed. 16.2.08 2