The court found that the complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 was malafide and deficient, lacking an affidavit supporting the contents, and lacking necessary details. The court also found that the complaint was an abuse of process of law, and granted interim relief by passing a detailed and reasoned order. The court concluded that the case of the Petitioner was squarely covered by categories laid down by the apex Court in the matter of State of Haryana & Others Vs. Bhajan Lal & Others (supra) and particularly category 7.

JUDGMENT

Prasanna B. Varale, J. - The present Petitions are filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India & Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashment of the order dated 07th april, 2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wada in O.M.a. No. 105 of 2021 and first information report bearing Crime No. 0129 of 2021 dated 13th april, 2021 in Wada Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471 read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the Petitioners.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, matters are taken up for hearing and disposal, at the admission stage itself.

3. Writ Petition No. 1805 of 2021 is treated as lead Petition so as to discuss the facts, submissions and merits of both the Petitions.

4. The challenge is raised on following grounds:

i. Respondent No. 2 at whose instance the complaint was submitted to the JMFC, Wada is wholly untenable and the Judicial Magistrate without application of mind passed the order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

ii. Respondent No. 2 submitted in the complaint that he had invested certain amount in the shares of the Petitioner Company and it is admitted by the Petitioner himself that Respondent No. 2 had not suffered any personal loss.

iii. Respondent No. 2 in his complaint admitted that the for the first time he had invested the amount in the shares of the company and further stated that on collection of certain information it came to his knowledge that the Petitioner Company played the mischief and with an oblique object caused the loss to its shareholders.

iv. Respondent No. 2 who is otherwise resident of Dadar, Mumbai, with a designed motive shifted to Biloshi, Wada and by arranging the house on rental basis for a limited period approached the Magistrate by submitting his complaint. Thus, Respondent No. 2 for fulfilling his oblique intention selected the jurisdiction of said Court.

v. Mr. Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel vehemently submitted before this Court that a similar attempt was made in other part of the county and a Petition was filed for quashing before Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court in its detailed order observed that the complaint was filed with oblique motive.

vi. Mr. Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel further submitted before the Court that the material in support of the complaint submitted before the Wada Court is nothing but an replica of a complaint in question before the Delhi High Court.

vii. Mr. Rohatgi submitted that without admitting, even if the complaint is considered on its face value, not a single offence is made out against the Petitioner.

viii. Mr. Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel further submitted before this Court that the continuity of the proceedings against the Petitioners would be nothing but an abuses of process of law.

5. It was submitted by Mr. Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Petitioners in WP/1805/2021 & Dr. Chandrachud appearing for Petitioner in WP/6812/2021 that a detailed order was passed by this Court refers to the points urged before this Court and the observations thereon. It was submitted that the observations of this Court are on the merits of the Petition and it covers the major contentions raised in the Petition as such, it assumes importance. For ready reference, we may quote the relevant observations of the Division bench in the order dated april 27, 2021 as under:

2] Mr. amit Desai, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that complaint lodged by respondent no. 2 (original complainant) leading to registration of aforesaid FIR was absolutely malafide and part of similar attempts made earlier against the petitioners by certain persons seeking to initiate criminal proceedings on the basis of false and frivolous allegations, so as to extract money from the petitioners. attention of this Court was inv