( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 802 OF 2009 Pralhad s/o. Wamanrao Lahane .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents Shri S.G. Magare, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri B.N. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 08.01.2010 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri S.G. Magare for the petitioner, A.P.P. Shri K.M. Suryawanshi for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Adv. Shri B.N. Patil for respondent No.3. This writ petition is filed for quashing F.I.R./complaint dated 13.06.2009 registered at Mantha Police Station as Crime No. 62 of 2009 under Section 409 & 406 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. 2. As per complaint lodged by respondent No.3, he was Field Officer and Taluka Inspector of Jalna District Central Co-operative Bank, Branch – Mantha. Talni Branch was under ( 2 ) his jurisdiction. Records show that there was some malpractices and therefore Head Office appointed Shri S.R. Patil as Head of the Inquiry Committee and the team headed by Shri S.R. Patil made inspection and gave report. In the report it was found that present petitioner has committed misappropriation to the extent of Rs.13,76,298/-. There were also three other employees who are said to have been committed misappropriation and criminal breach of trust in respect of other amounts. These details were given as to which amounts were misappropriated by whom. It is further stated that thereafter audit of Talni branch was carried out by M/s. Nitin Choudhari & Associate, Chartered Accountant and they gave report dated 26.05.2009 and recorded that in 884 accounts there was misappropriation. Thereafter, respondent No.3 himself made inquiry and on the basis of report filed by respondent No.3, action of suspension and dismissal was taken against all four employees and thereafter directions were given to respondent No.3 by the General Manager to lodge complaint. Accordingly, complaint was lodged for total misappropriation of Rs. 31,58,010/-. The learned advocate for the petitioner said that the present petitioner is recovery officer and his job was to recover loan amounts and ( 3 ) he is not responsible. He drew my attention to representation dated 11.08.2008 filed by the present petitioner to the Administrator of the D.C.C. Bank, the copy of which is produced at Exh. “B”. It is argued that this F.I.R. deserves to be quashed and set aside so far as present petitioner is concerned. 3. On the other hand advocate for respondent No.3 Shri B.N. Patil has filed reply affidavit and has substantiated the allegations made in the complaint by producing various documents. 4. After going through the papers and after hearing the parties, in my opinion, this is not a case where F.I.R. can be quashed. Investigation is yet to be carried out. It is in progress. In the circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to move proper Court for proper relief, after charge-sheet is filed. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/JAN10/crwp802.09