The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for thorough investigation and the refusal to limit relief to the petitioners, considering the impact on depositors.

P.C.:-

1. Writ Petition is filed for quashing and setting aside the order made by J.M.F.C. Dondaicha in application no. 192 of 2009. In a private complaint filed by respondent no.2 for offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 407, 408, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, J.M.F.C. has made order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the concerned Police Station is directed to make investigation of the matter. Both sides are heard.

2. Present petitioners are said to be borrowers of Dadasaheb Rawal Co-operative Bank Ltd., Dondaicha, Tq. Shindkheda, Dist Dhule. Accused no.2 – Jaideosing Rawal was Chairman of this bank at the relevant time. The complainant, who is share holder of the Bank has made allegations that Swodharak Vidhyarthi Sanstha belongs to the family of accused no.2, Kanhayya Traders, a concerned belongs to a daughter of accused no.2 and Krushiraj Traders belongs to a daughter of accused no.2. It is contended that accused no.2 conspired with the other directors of the Bank and siphoned the money of bank to the concerned institutions established and created in the names of his family members. Allegations are made that no procedure was followed for sanctioning the loans to the petitioners and even when there was no sufficient security, huge loans were given. There are also allegations that false record was prepared of bad debts of Rs. 101 Lac though the bad debt amount had gone upto Rs. 1597 Lacs. Attempt was made to show that everything was all right but due to siphoning of the amount in the aforesaid manner the Bank ultimately went into liquidation and its depositors were cheated.

3. When on one occasion audit was done, it was revealed that to Swodharak Vidhyarthi Sanstha, the property loan of Rs. 32.55 lacs was given and there was no sufficient security for this loan. Whatever, security was shown to be given was also subsequently disposed of. To Kanhayya Traders trading loan of Rs. 79.99 Lacs was given which was in excess of the capacity of the traders and for which there was no sufficient security. To Krushiraj Traders trading loan of Rs. 69.66 Lacs was given and for this also there was no sufficient security. To Kanhayya Traders cash credit loan was given of Rs. 31.77 Lacs and for this loan old stock which was there as per their record three years prior to date of loan, was shown.

4. It was submitted for the petitioners that at present no amount is due in respect of aforesaid transactions and petitioners have not committed any offence. Advocate for the petitioners relied on one enquiry report. This Court has gone through the enquiry report, which is not accepted by anybody. Report shows that very vague report was prepared. Security papers and other aspects were not at all discussed. However, report shows that the borrowers had defaulted in making repayment of loan when the report was prepared.

5. Another submission was made that the complaint is filed out of political rivalry. Reliance was placed on the Station Dairy entry no. 38 made in the Police Station of Dondaicha. It shows that when the present complainant had gone to the police station, the Ex-State Minister and Secretary of Marketing Committee and one Advocate had given him company and they had tried to pressurize the Police Officer to register the crime on the basis of the report. This incident had taken place on 20.10.2006. Though there is such station dairy entry, that cannot absolve the petitioners or Chairman and Directors of the Bank if with dishonest intention and against the provisions made in that regard the money was siphoned to the institutions created by the Chairman in the names of his family members. At the time of consideration of such case, all events need to be considered only to ascertain as to whether the alleged incidents had caused loss to the depositors. The bank went into liquidation and this can not be ignored in such case.

6. One more modus operandi was also pointed out. To Kanhayya