JUDGMENT :

(Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The petitioner has been made an accused in Crime No. 2 of 2020, Malad Police Station, Mumbai, in which offences punishable under sections 406, 409 and 420 read with 120 (B) of the Indian Penal code and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 have been registered against the petitioner and other accused persons.

4. The gist of the allegations made against the petitioner is that at the relevant time she was Director of Shri Ramanjaneya Leasing and Finance Pvt. Ltd. (in short ‘SRLF’) and being Director of the Company she was responsible for commission of the afore-stated offences. It is alleged that the Company was engaged in the business of providing finance to various persons against the security of mortgage of immovable properties and also accepting deposits from the investors, which were to be returned to the depositors with interest at different rates ranging from 1% to 1.25 % per month but the Company, failed to return the deposits.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was merely the Director of SRLF and had no requisite mens-rea for constituting these offences. He submits that petitioner was never involved in managing affairs of SRLF or doing any act for and on behalf of the SRLF. He also submits that there is no allegation against the petitioner that at any point of time she had induced any of the depositors for depositing certain sum of money with SRLF nor is there any allegation that she had actually accepted these deposits. He submits that the petitioner has been arraigned in the present crime by wrongly assuming her to be an “ alter ego” of SRLF although, she was not the Director who had represented the “directing mind” and “will” of the company, which can be seen from her not doing any single act for and on behalf of the Company.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is one allegation made against the petitioner and it is about depositing of amount of Rs.1.27 Crores in her personal account and then diverting that amount to the account of the Company. He submits that this allegation is not enough to prima-facie implicate the petitioner in the present crime as petitioner was not involved in depositing this sum of money in her personal account and all she did was to merely sign some papers on the directions of the other Directors who were involved in running the affairs of SRLF and therefore, according to learned counsel, this is a fit case for quashing of the F.I.R.

7. Learned APP opposes this application. Disagreeing with the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, she submits that there is indeed some material available on record, which prima-facie shows the involvement of the petitioner in this crime. According to her, the petitioner was Director of SRLF along with other persons who were also the Directors of SRLF and all these Directors, including the petitioner were part and parcel on the same family and therefore, it cannot be accepted that the petitioner had no knowledge about what the other Directors were doing and as to how they were running the affairs of SLRF. She further submits that, although it is true that, there is no allegation made against the petitioner that she had taken part in giving inducement to the prospective investors or in accepting the deposits from the investors, the petitioner had played some role in assisting the commission of the offences and that is why she has signed some papers authorising diversion of funds lodged in her personal account to the account of the Company.

8. Now let us examine the material available on record, in the light of the rival arguments, in order to find out what role the petitioner has played in commission of the alleged offences or otherwise, in a prima-facie manner.

9. It is not