Per Bilal Nazki, J. :

Rule.

2. Learned Associate Advocate General appearing for the State waives service.

3. By consent of the parties and looking to the issues involved, Rule made returnable and heard forthwith.

4. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the F.I.R. being F.I.R. No. 151 of 2007 registered with Cuffe Parade Police Station and thereafter numbered as 74/2007 transferred with EOW Wing of crime Branch, Mumbai, under Sections 406, 420, and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code on a complaint having been made by respondent No.2. Earlier also this petitioner had filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 1796 of 2007, which was withdrawn by him with liberty to approach the Court again in case need arises.

5. The F.I.R. which is sought to be quashed by the Court, makes certain allegations against the petitioner and it was stated in the complaint that the accused persons, in collusion and in connivance with each other, preplanned and established a company known as City Limouzines (India) Pvt. Ltd. They promoted the scheme of “Go/Vehicle on rental basis and earning by sitting at home”, assuring the people for earning the moneys in easy way. The company issued public advertisement in a newspaper. They also issued pamphlets and attracted huge investments. The accused persons accepted crores of rupees and the amount so realised was misappropriated and thereby the investors were deceived. Thereafter, it is the case of the prosecution that the statement of the complainant was recorded in which he gave details with regard to the affairs of the company and he stated that he saw an advertisement in the local Marathi newspaper which read as “Give the Motor Car on rental basis and earn the moneys sitting at home”. In the said advertisement the name and address of the company was given as M/s. Limouzine India Limited, 102, Mittal Tower, B-Wing, 10th Floor, Nariman point, Mumbai – 400 021. In the advertisement, it was also mentioned that the motor car would be purchased in the name of the investors and if the same was given on rental basis, good profit per month shall be given to the investors on their investments. On reading the said advertisement, he went to make detailed inquiry. He along with his friend went to the address given in the said advertisement of the company. There were many persons sitting in the office, who were also making inquiry. When he made inquiries, he was sent to a cabin where one Smt. Geeta Razaki was sitting. The said Geeta Razaki introduced herself as the Administrative Director of the said Company. The other person sitting there also introduced himself as Sayed Mohamed Masood Jamdar, as the Managing Director of the said Company. At that time the Complainant asked them about the reference in the newspaper. The said two persons then told him the details about the Company and also gave information with respect to the scheme. He was told that the car would be of ownership of the investors and the investors would be entitled to profit per month. The scheme was that the owner would purchase a car of Maruti Omni and the same would be given to the Company on rental basis. He was told that he would have to invest an amount of Rs.97,907/-in the Company, the company shall purchase a Maruti Omni car in his name and the same shall be allowed to run on rental basis to other companies and the Complainant would get a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month for a period of sixty months and after completion of the period of sixty months the said car would remain in the ownership of the Complainant as it would be returned to him. Then on 26th July, 2007, he prepared a cheque for the amount of Rs.97,907/-and handed it over to the Company and thereafter an agreement was signed by the parties. The Company paid per month Rs.4,000/- to the Complainant as agreed upon, but after completion of five years the Maruti Omni car was not handed over to the Complainant.

6. Therefore, the dispute revolves whether the