JUDGMENT :

Shyam C. Chandak, J.

. These Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are being decided by this common Judgment as the parties and the questions involved in the Petitions are same. Additionally, the Petitions are questioning two Orders passed in two separate Criminal Revision Applications but both Revisions impugning the same Order of issue process dated 07.04.2022, passed by the 28^th Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, at Esplanade, Mumbai in a complaint case No.2800098/SW/2020 filed by M/s Samraj Gold Exports Pvt. Ltd. (“the complainant”) against nine accused.

1.1 Petitioner in Writ Petition No.523/2023 is the original complainant and Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 therein are the original accused Nos.2, 5 & 7. Petitioners in Writ Petition No.3626/2022 are the original accused Nos.1, 3, 4, 6 and 9. Petitioner in Writ Petition No.6246/2024 is the original accused No.8. (Hereinafter parties are being referred to by their original status in the complaint).

2. Writ Petition No.3626/2022 has been directed against the Order dated 11.08.2022 passed by the learned Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in Criminal Revision Application No.488 of 2022. Thereby, the revisional Court dismissed that revision application to the extent of A-1, A-3, A-4, A-6 and A-9 upholding against them the said Order of issue process for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 406, 467, 468, 471, and 34 of I.P.C. Writ Petition No.523/2023 has been filed by the complainant challenging the same Order dated 11.08.2022, thereby, the revisional Court partly allowed that revision application to the extent of A-2, A-5 and A-7 setting aside the said Order of issue process against them.

2.1 Writ Petition No.6246/2024 has been filed by A-8 impugning an Order dated 05.04.2023, in Criminal Revision Application No.639 of 2022, passed by another learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court Greater Bombay, thereby, said revision application filed by A-8 was dismissed upholding against him the same impugned Order of issue process dated 07.04.2022.

3. Heard Mr. Shah, learned Senior counsel appearing for A-1 to A-7 and A-9, Mr. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for A-8 and Mr. Naphade with Mr.Rehman Shaikh learned counsel appearing for the complainant and Ms. Shinde, the learned APP appearing for the Respondent-State. Perused the entire record.

4. The complainant’s case is that it deals in gold business. Mr. Rakesh Samanta has been the director of the complainant. Between 2001 and till 2019, the complainant used to insure its goods with A-1. The A-2 was Chairman of A-1. The A-3 was an Administrative Officer, MRO-IV of A-1. The A-4 was Divisional Manager of MRO-IV of A-1. The A-5 was General Manager and the A-6 was Divisional Head of A-1. The A-7 was Head of the claim department and A-9 was the Dy. General Manger of A-1. Rakesh Samanta knew the accused.

4.1 The complainant filed the said complaint on 02.12.2020 against the accused persons alleging an offence under Sections 467, 468, 469, 471 and 406 of I.P.C. In the complaint it was stated that on 13.05.2019 the Director-Rakesh Samanta had filed an F.I.R. alleging that the complainant had entrusted 20.7 kgs. of gold to Anil Maji and his associates to make jewellery/ornaments. However, Anil Maji and his associates misappropriate that gold by cheating. Said gold was insured with A-1 (vide policy of insurance dated 14.01.2019). After lodging the F.I.R., the complainant filed the insurance claim towards the lost gold property.

4.2 It was alleged that in-spite of accepting the necessary premium and issuing the policy of insurance, the accused persons avoided to process and pay the insurance claim finding faults with the claim Application filed by complainant. For that purpose, appointment of surveyor was delayed, the record of the insurance policy was tampered with, false documents of insurance policy were prepar