JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, heard finally.

2. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned senior counsel for respondent no.2 and learned APP for the State.

3. The offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act (for short ‘MPID Act’) has been registered against the petitioner. When the FIR was registered Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code were applied. Immediately the applicant approached this Court to quash the FIR under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. However, during the course of arguments, it was revealed that inadvertently the Sections under MPID Act remained to be mentioned in petition. However, on instructions, he withdrew the proceeding. The investigation officer was restrained from filing the charge sheet by interim relief. However, the fact remains that on the day of filing the said petition, the petitioner/applicant knew that the MPID Act was applied. Since the material facts were suppressed, this Court dismissed the said petition and imposed a cost of Rs.5 lacs. The petitione