JUDGMENT :

Mangesh S. Patil, J.

Heard the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Hon in Criminal Writ Petition No. 597/2023 and Ms. Talekar in Criminal Writ Petition No. 615/2023 as also the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Kale.

2. Rule in both the Criminal Writ Petitions. It is made returnable forthwith. Learned Public Prosecutor waives service for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and learned advocate Ms. Talekar for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in the former petition. Learned Public Prosecutor waives service for all the respondents in latter petition. Both the matters arise out of the same set of facts, one seeks quashment of the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereas the other petition seeks implementation of the self-same order expeditiously. Hence this common judgment.

3. The facts leading to the filing of these petitions can be summarized as under:

(a) The petitioner is a Co-Operative Society duly registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960, running a sugar factory (hereinafter referred to as ‘the sugar factory’). It had availed of the loan and states to have distributed it to the farmers for development and improvement in cultivation of sugarcane. The loan scheme was described as ‘basel dose loans’. It was a scheme floated by the Government for waiver of loan taken by the farmers. The sugar factory had taken the loan from two nationalized banks for passing on the benefits of the scheme to its more than 12000 members. It is being alleged by the clients of Ms. Talekar that the loans were obtained under the garb of its distribution to the farmers as ‘basel does’ for sugarcane cultivation. However, it was not actually distributed to the farmers. One of her two clients is a shareholder of the sugar factory. They allege that the office bearers of the sugar factory cheated the farmers who were its members by availing the loan facility from the two nationalized banks but never forwarded the benefit to them. These loans were raised by the sugar factory between the years 2005 and 2009. The audit report of the sugar factory mentioned about such loan in its debts and liabilities during the period 2005 and 2009. The sugar factory had to refund this amount of loan in the year 2014-2015 together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. It is thus alleged that the sugar factory had obtained the money under the loan waiver scheme in 2009 without being entitled to, used it for several years and had illegally incurred the monetary liability of 6% interest while repaying it and this would constitute misappropriation.

(b) On the ground that the police were not registering crime Ms. Talekar’s clients filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 1223/2019 seeking directions for registration of F.I.R. and its investigation.

(c) By the order dated 10.10.2019 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1223/2019 this Court recorded observation that though the Commissioner for Co-operation had expressed a view that criminal action needed to be taken but it was not initiated. The public prosecutor made a statement that the investigation would be conducted by the officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and further undertook to submit a report within 15 days. It further observed that since it was a time of change of roaster instead of keeping the matter part-heard it recorded the observation that pursuant to the investigation to be made as submitted by the learned prosecutor, if it was found that the sugar factory and the bank officers by making false representation had secured the benefit of the scheme, on the statement of the petitioner No. 2 therein who is one of the two clients of Ms. Talekar the police would register a crime and take further action.

(d) The sugar factory put up a challenge to that order in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(s). 37823/2019. The Supreme Court passed following order on 04.11.2019 :

“Issue notice on the special leave petition as well as on the prayer for in