JUDGMENT :

Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Present petition has been filed by invoking powers of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to challenge and quash the complaint bearing R.C.C. No. 788 of 2008, pending before Joint Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Dhule, as well as the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 04.03.2009. Petitioner no.01 is made as accused no.03 and petitioner no.02 is made as accused no.19.

The said complaint has been filed by present respondent no.02. The parties are referred as accused persons and complainant hereinafter.

2. The complainant contended that he is member of accused no.01 - Bank. Accused nos.02 to 20 are the Directors, Chairman, Vice-President, etc. Accused no.19 is the Manager and accused no.20 is the Special Executive Officer. Accused no.21 is the auditor who has audited the accounts of the bank for the financial year 2006-07. The bank was established under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Complainant had taken loan to the tune of Rs. 2,85,000/- on 28.08.2003 from the bank. It was to be repaid by the end of 28.08.2007. He could not repay it. At the time of disbursement of the loan, the bank had asked bank cheques from the complainant.

Accordingly he had issued cheques bearing no. 026027 and 026030 drawn on Dadasaheb Rawal Co-operative Bank Ltd., Dondaicha Branch, Dhule. It is alleged that out of those cheques, cheque no. 026030 was handed over by accused nos.2 to 20 to one Chandan Arjundas Pallani, thereby those persons have committed cheating. Complainant had issued legal notice dated 04.06.2005 to that effect and then lodged report with the police station. It is stated that accused no.21 audited the accounts for the year 2006-07 and it has been specifically stated that accused nos.02 to 20 have illegally and in unsafe manner distributed loans. Accused persons have granted those loans against the rules, thereby committed misappropriation of lakhs of rupees. Amount of Rs. 3,10,50,000/- has been distributed as loan without following due procedure. The names of those persons to whom the loan has been so granted have been given. The complainant contends that in all, the misappropriation is to the tune of Rs. 10,83,31,400/-. He, therefore, prayed for criminal action against all the accused persons.

3. After considering the contents of the complaint, the learned Magistrate had sent complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears that around 04.03.2009, the report was received which was in the negative. It was stated that detailed investigation was necessary which has not been carried out and, therefore, the matter was sent for re-investigation and sufficient time was granted. This order and the complaint itself has been challenged in this writ petition.

4. The application has been objected by the original complainant - present respondent no.02 by filing affidavit in reply. The contents of the said affidavit in reply are nothing but the repetition.

Therefore, they have not been repeated again. It is stated that proper procedure had been adopted to know that the accused has committed offence. Audit report was considered by him and, therefore, he is of the opinion that let the investigation be carried out.

5. Heard learned Advocate Shri A.S. Sawant for the petitioners. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. V.S. Choudhary for respondent no.01 - State. So also, heard learned Advocate Mr. K.C. Sant for respondent no.02. Perused the documents on record produced by the petitioners as well as respondents no.01 and 02.

6. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that no specific role has been attributed to the present petitioners i.e. original accused nos.03 and 19. The Investigation Officer had already arrived at the conclusion that with some mala fide intention, the complaint has been filed. Perusal of the