M/S. Fairwinds Asset Managers Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 4884 Bom

                                           1
                                                                              cri-wp-779-16

pdp
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                               
                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 779 OF 2016




                                                       
      M/s. Fairwinds Asset Managers Ltd.
      (earlier known as Reliance Equity
      Advisors India Ltd.) representing




                                                      
      M/s. Reliance Alternative Investments
      Fund-Private Equity Scheme I (A Trust
      registered under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882)
      M/s. Fairwinds Asset Managers Ltd.




                                              
      is represented through Ramesh Venkat,
      Managing Partner, Adult Indian Inhabitant
                                     
      Aged 51 years, having its registered office
      address at 1105, Level 11, Tower -1, One
      Indiabulls Centre, 841 Senapati Bapat Marg,
                                    
      Elphinestone Road, Mumbai - 400 034.                    .. Petitioner

                    Versus
             


      1.    State of Maharashtra
      2.    Additional Commissioner of Police
          



            Economic Offences Wing, Criminal
            Investigation Department, Mumbai Police,
            Crime Branch Building, Office of
            Commissioner of Police, Mumbai,





            Opp. Crawford Market, Dr. D.N. Road,
            Mumbai - 400 001.                                 .. Respondents

      Mr. Haresh Jagtiani, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Siddhesh Bhole, Mr. Ryan
      Mendeo i/by Haresh Jagtiani & Associates for petitioner.





      Mrs. Sangeeta D. Shinde, APP for respondents-State.

      Mr. Abad Ponda a/w Mr. Ankit, Mr. Nikhil Koach i/by Croford Bayley &
      Co. for interveners.




            ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016               ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:48 :::
                                             2
                                                                                 cri-wp-779-16

                                         CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL &
                                                PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ.

                          RESERVED ON           : AUGUST 18, 2016.




                                                          
                       PRONOUNCED ON            : AUGUST 25, 2016


    JUDGMENT [ Per Naresh H. Patil, J.] :




                                                         
    1.            Rule.      Rule made returnable forthwith.      Heard finally by

    consent of parties.




                                               
    2.
                                   

The petitioner prays for direction to register F.I.R. on the

complaint addressed by him to the Joint Commissioner of Police,

Economic Offences Wing, Crime Branch, Mumbai, dated 30/4/2015.

3. By communication dated 21/1/2016, Mr. Arvind N.

Wadhankar, Sr. Inspector of Police, EOW, Unit-V, Mumbai informed the

petitioner that the complaint is of civil nature and they have closed the

enquiry.

4. In short, it is contended that petitioner is a Fund Manager

which manages the fund set up under a Trust called Reliance Alternative

Investments Fund - Private Equity Scheme I (RAIF). RAIF was

cri-wp-779-16

established in 2008 and since then had made various investments in

diversified industries. It is stated that RAIF comprises constituents like

Public Sector Banks viz. Bank of Baroda, Punjab National Bank, Indian

Overseas Bank, Andhra Bank and also Army Group Insurance and LIC of

India.

5. It is the petitioner's contention that Max Flex & Imaging

Systems Limited is an unlisted public limited company incorporated in the

year 2002 under the Companies Act, 1956. The Company is in the

business of, inter alia, manufacturing, contract manufacturing and

marketing of digital and offset printing consumables, including printing

surfaces, printing inks, offset printing chemicals, offset printing plates and

accessories. RAIF is also an investor and shareholder in the Company.

According to the petitioner, Hitesh Jobalia, Nimesh Shah and Rahul Desai

are the persons responsible for the dealings of the Company against whom,

amongst other, the registration of crime and investigation is prayed for. It

is stated that the Company is promoted and managed by Hitesh Jobalia as

its Managing Director and Nimesh Shah as its Executive Director and

Rahul Desai as its Vice President Finance and Accounts. Said Hitesh

Jobalia and Nimesh Shah are also the promoters of the Company. Said

cri-wp-779-16

Hitesh Jobalia along with his wife Mrs. Dipti Jobalia holds more than 53%

of the equity shares in the Company.

6. The petitioner's allegation is that the EOW failed to register

the FIR in respect of serious fraud committed by the above stated accused

persons with respect to an amount of Rs.136 crores invested by the

petitioner through Trust. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of

the fact that since last 8 to 9 months, the Investigating Agency did not

communicate the petitioner about the decision on the said complaint. The

petitioner has challenged the conclusion reached by the Investigating

Officer (Senior Inspector, EOW, Unit - V, Mumbai).

7. In the complaint, the complainant had referred to details of

transactions, annual report of the Company, financial status, the projected

revenue, profit margin etc. In Clause 4.31 the complainant alleged as

under :-

4.31. Later that evening, Mr. Hitesh Jobalia called one of us i.e. Mr. Rahul Manek and asked him to come to the office of the Company urgently. Mr. Rahul Manek accompanied by Ms. Namrata Chotrani (as representatives of RAIF) went to

cri-wp-779-16

the office of the Company and entered Mr. Hitesh Jobalia's cabin. There, Mr. Hitesh Jobalia broke down and admitted to

Mr. Rahul Manek and Ms. Namrata Chotrani that the

Company was in heavy losses and that he had been making fraudulent entries in the books of accounts of the Company. Mr. Rahul Manek and Ms. Namrata Chotrani were shocked at

the revelation as they had been receiving and relying upon monthly financial reports since their initial investment in the Company until August 2014 which reflected the sales and

profits of the Company, both of which had been shown

to have steady growth. Mr. Nimesh Shah was also privy to some of the aforesaid. Attached hereto as Annexures 8, 11, 13

and 17 are copies of the reports received by us. Mr. Hitesh Jobalia constantly repeated the fact that the Company was actually suffering heavy losses and that the balance sheet of

the Company was false.

Clause 4.38 of the complaint reads as under :

4.38. Subsequently on 19 March 2015 Mr. Rubin Chheda visited the registered office of the Company in an attempt to

procure additional information. There he met with Mr. Rahul Desai who described the three schemes used by the Promoters to inflate the sale and thereby falsify the accounts of the Company and/or misappropriate the property of the Company

cri-wp-779-16

including RAIF's investments. Please find an outline of the schemes below :-

I. Generating funds out of non-funded limits :

(i) The Company would generate a fake purchase bill /

order in the name of one of the following entities ("Purported Traders"):

a. Spectrum Opto owned by Mr. Amessh Ghandhi

who is Mr. Hitesh Jobalia's close friend and employee of the Company,

b. Singh Digital owned by the father of Mr.Jaspal Singh, an employee of the Company, c. Vision Infotech owned by Mr. Nishith Sheth,

cousin of Mr. Hitesh Jobalia,

d. Pacific Printers owned by Mr. Amit Chugh, an employee of the Company, e. Gurcharan Digital Meida owned by Mr. Nilesh

Thole, an ex employee of the Company, f. Spectrum International owned by Mr. Girdhar Menon, father of Mr. Prashant Menon, an employee of

the Company.

g. Silver Photostore owned by Mr. Pratik Turakhia who is the nephew of Mr. Hitesh Jobalia.

cri-wp-779-16

(ii) The Company would then open a Letter of Credit in favour of one of the Purported Traders against such purchase

bill / order.

(iii) The Purported Trader would discount the Letter of Credit and arrange payment to the account of one of the other Purported Traders.

(iv) Such other Purported Trader would then write a cheque in favour the Company under guise of making a purchase from the Company.

Annexed hereto as Annexure 21 are statements of the bank

accounts held by the Company with various banks for the

period from 1 September 2014 to 30 September 2014 showing transactions with the Purported Traders. As a result of the above, the revenue, profitability and current assets of the

Company were continuously inflated allowing for higher drawing power which aided the Company for increasing the

funded and non-funded bank limits which was one of the intents with which this exercise had been undertaken.

Annexed hereto as Annexure 22 is a summary of the credit limits enjoyed by the Company with its various banks as on 16 September 2014. Further, we have been given to understand

that the accounts of the Purported Traders are operated by Mr.Nimesh Shah.

II. Generating cash through fake purchases :

(i) The Company would purportedly purchase goods from

cri-wp-779-16

one of the following entities :

                     a.      Amit & Co.




                                                   
                     b.      N N Mehta
                     c.      Ameeko Marketing
             (ii)    The Company would issue cheques to the party from




                                                  

whom it has purportedly purchased goods in terms of (i) above,

(iii) This party would handover cash to the Promoters, who

would then misappropriate the funds of the Company.

III. Selling goods on a cash basis without showing any

account entries :

(i) The Company would purchase goods from its suppliers;

(ii) The goods would then be sold for cash, but would

remain as inventory in the books of the Company;

(iii) The cash would then be misappropriated by the Promoters.

It appears that as a result of these three schemes, the inventory and debtors of the Company were constantly inflated, thereby remaining on the higher side. Thereafter, in the draft balance

sheet circulated to us on 5 December 2014, the falsely inflated inventory and debtors of the Company appear to have been discounted, which has resulted in the purported losses shown by the Company in these financials.

cri-wp-779-16

In Clause 5.4 of the complaint, the complainant alleges that,

5.4 Annexed hereto as Annexure 26 is a copy of the ledger account of Singh Digital (a Purported Trader) as maintained

by the Company, for the period from 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015. We have, unfortunately, been unable to procure copies of the ledger accounts maintained by the Company with any of

the other Purported Traders. However, it is noteworthy that

the quantum of business purported to have been done with Singh Digital alone in the past year is approximately Rs.79

crores, which is a rather large amount. Of this, it is not possible for us to ascertain how much business has been legitimately carried out with Singh Digital and how much is to

create an inflation in revenues and expenditures in the manner

described in Scheme I set out paragraph 4.38. Mr.Jaspal Singh, an employee of the Company, whose father purportedly is the proprietor of Singh Digital, has informed Mr.Rubin

Chheda that he and his father are both unaware of the transactions undertaken by Singh Digital and that the accounts of Singh Digital are managed by Mr. Nimesh Shah.

In Clause 6 of the complaint, specific charges against the

promoters, Mr. Rahul Desai and others are also made.

cri-wp-779-16

8. The petition was filed on 18/2/2016. By an order dated

7/3/2016, this court passed following order :-

"P.C.

1. By communication dated 21/1/2016, Mr. Arvind N. Wadhankar, Senior Inspector of Police, EOW Unit -V for

Mumbai communicated Mr.Rahul Manek/Mr. Rubin Chheda that they have come to the conclusion that prima facie no cognizable offence has been disclosed in the matter. According

to the Investigating Agency, the complaint discloses violation

of civil laws.

2. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Jagtiani, appearing for the

petitioner, submits a list of instances showing element of criminality regarding which no investigation has been carried out. It is submitted that complaint was filed before nine

months. The Investigating Officer acted contrary to the Apex

Court judgment in the matter of Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh and ors. [(2014) 2 SCC 1]. The learned APP submits that audit accounts for the years 2013-2014 and 2014-

2015 are not available and, therefore, it is not possible for the Investigating Agency to inquire into the offence complained of.

3. We direct the ACP, EOW Unit, Mumbai to look into the matter and guide the Senior Police Inspector and Police Inspector in the light of the arguments advanced today and the list of instances submitted by the petitioner before this court.

cri-wp-779-16

The Investigating Agency shall file a short report in this regard.

Stand over for two weeks i.e. 21/3/2016. To be listed under the caption "fresh matter"."

9. Learned APP submitted two reports, dated 1/3/2016 and

11/4/2016 signed by Mr. Rajesh Shinde, Inspector of Police and Mr. D. V.

Chanvan, Sr. Inspector of Police, Unit - V, EOW, Mumbai.

10. As stated above, by communication dated 21/1/2016, the

Investigating Agency had closed the complaint/enquiry. Said

Communication reads as under :-

"To, Mr. Rahul Manek/Mr. Rubin Chheda

Fairwinds Trustees Services Private Limited 1105, Level 11, Tower -1 One Indiabulls Centre, 841 Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphistone Road, Mumbai -13.

                  Subject :-        Inquiry in PE-No.-80/2015

                  Sir,

We conducted Preliminary Enquiry registered vide P.E.No. 80/15 on the basis of your application against Mr. Hitesh Jobalia & other's of Max Flex Imaging System Limited

cri-wp-779-16

having its office at 102, Prime Plaza, J. V. Patel Compound, Balasaheb Madhukar Marg, Elphistone (West), Mumbai - 400

After conduction of enquiry, we have come to the conclusion that prima facie no cognizable offence has been disclosed in this matter. All the acts of commission and omission on the part of non-complainant come under the

purview of civil laws. As such the complaint is civil in nature we have closed the enquiry.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

                                    ig            (Arvind N. Wadhankar)
                                         Sr. Inspector of Police, EOW, Unit -V,
                                                        Mumbai."
                                  

11. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Haresh Jagtiani submitted that in

view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari

Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and ors. [(2014) 2 SCC 1], in the

facts and considering the nature of allegations made by the complainant, it

was mandatory for the Investigating Agency to register an F.I.R. The

complainant had made out a case for commission of cognizable offence.

Hence, there was no option but to register an FIR forthwith. It was

submitted that the police took near about 9 months to communicate its

decision that the complaint is of civil nature and, therefore, it was closed.

The Investigating Agency avoided its duty in not registering the FIR and

cri-wp-779-16

instead has blamed the complainant and has treated the accused to have

been already acquitted in the case. Learned counsel submitted that the

reports filed by the Investigating Agency, more particularly report dated

11/4/2016 is not only unreasonable but it shocks the conscience. The

Investigating Agency embarked upon a thorough investigation,

appreciation of evidence for reaching a final conclusion wherein the

complainant is shown to be blameworthy whereas accused to be innocent.

The learned counsel submitted that the conduct of the Investigating Officer

needs to be minutely scrutinized while deciding the matter. The

Investigating Agency before registration of FIR has unnecessarily gone into

a sort of in-depth analysis and investigation of the case, which itself

supports the contention of the petitioner that a case was made out at least

for registration of FIR.

12. Learned counsel has briefly referred to copies of some of the

ledger account sheets placed on record, which, according to the counsel,

were forwarded by the accused to the complainant. In that connection,

learned counsel referred to page 434 and 444 of the paper book.

13. Learned APP submitted that the complaint was received by the

cri-wp-779-16

Investigating Agency on 12/5/2015. In the month of August and October,

2015, the complainant submitted relevant documents and thereafter the

preliminary inquiry was conducted by the respondent under the supervision

of ACP - 3, EOW, Unit, Mumbai. Learned APP submitted that the

documents referred during the course of the arguments are not authentic

one, they are notarized documents. It was submitted that Directors of the

petitioner-Company attended meetings of the other companies which were

allegedly run by the persons named in the complaint, which itself

demonstrate that the Directors of the petitioner - Company were aware of

the financial condition, profit-loss account, balance sheet position etc. It is

the complainant who caused delay in filing the complaint, according to the

learned APP. Learned APP referred to two reports submitted under the

signature of the Investigating Officer. In the view of the learned APP, no

case of commission of cognizable offence was made out after the

Investigating Agency verified the record, conducted enquiry by contacting

various persons. Learned APP further submitted that there is alternate

efficacious remedy for the petitioner. The petitioner has remedy under the

Code of Criminal Procedure and more efficacious remedy under the

Company law. There are other forums which can go into the details and

enquiry in case the petitioner approaches them. Learned APP submitted

cri-wp-779-16

that still the final audit reports of the Companies, which according to the

complainant are bogus, are not prepared and furnished to the Investigating

Agency and, therefore, they are not in a position to make any statement of

involvement of the persons named in the complaint.

14. During the course of hearing, learned counsel Mr. Abad

Ponda, appeared and submitted that he is instructed to appear for the

proposed accused/persons named in the complaint. The persons against

whom complaint was lodged are not party-respondents to this petition. But

on a request made by Mr. Ponda, we permitted the learned counsel to

address the court very briefly on limited legal issue concerning the

alternate remedies available to the petitioner-complainant.

15. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Lalita

Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and ors. (Supra), in para 119,

observed as under :-

"119. Therefore, in view of various counterclaims regarding registration or non-registration, what is necessary is only that the information given to the police must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In such a situation,

cri-wp-779-16

registration of an FIR is mandatory. However, if no cognizable offence is made out in the information given, then the FIR

need not be registered immediately and perhaps the police can

conduct a sort of preliminary verification or inquiry for the limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable offence has been committed. But, if the information given

clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of

FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether

the information is genuine, whether the information is credible, etc. These are the issues that have to be verified

during the investigation of the FIR. At the stage of registration of FIR, what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable

offence. If, after investigation, the information given is found

to be false, there is always an option to prosecute the complainant for filing a false FIR."

16. We have perused the following judgments :-

(a) Sunil Gangadhar Karve vs. State of Maharashtra and

ors. [(2014) 14 SCC 22].

(b) Aleque Padamsee and ors. vs. Union of India and ors. [(2007) 6 SCC 171].

(c) Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [AIR 2008 SC 907].

cri-wp-779-16

17. The issue involved is as to whether the information given by

the complainant discloses commission of a cognizable offence. In case

such information discloses cognizable offence, the only outcome is

registration of FIR. This exercise is mandatory in nature and in case it is

found by the Investigating Agency, after investigation, that information

given by the complainant was false, there is an option to prosecute the

complainant for filing false FIR.

18. On behalf of the respondents it is submitted that the petitioner

has alternate remedy of resorting to provisions of Sections 154 (1), (3) and

156(3) of Cr. P. C. in case Investigating Agency refuses to register FIR.

Ordinarily a complainant would resort to alternate remedies which are, no

doubt, efficacious in nature but at the same time, as a principle, it cannot be

accepted that High Court is denuded of its powers of issuing appropriate

direction to register FIR under writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India merely because an alternate remedy is available. The

exercise of constitutional power conferred under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India of issuing directions would depend on the facts of

each case and various attending features, gravity and seriousness of the

cri-wp-779-16

issue raised.

19. Though the respondent - Investigating Agency received the

complaint on 12/5/2015, a formal response to the same in the shape of a

decision taken by the Investigating Agency was received by the petitioner

through a communication made by the respondent on 21/1/2016. The

explanation provided for this delay of near about 9 months in taking the

decision was that the petitioner was not cooperating with the Investigating

Agency, which fact has been denied by the learned counsel for the

petitioner. The learned APP further submitted that in the month of August

and October, 2015, the complainant submitted some more documents and

thereafter preliminary inquiry started. From the reports submitted on

record and the submissions advanced, we find that the Investigating

Agency conducted the preliminary inquiry as investigation in the case,

which takes place after registration of FIR. It seems that the Investigating

Agency had gone into much details, analysis, examination of voluminous

documents, contacting various persons while conducting preliminary

inquiry. In the facts, we find that such is not the objective of permitting

the Investigating Agency to conduct a preliminary inquiry. In law, such a

preliminary inquiry was to be conducted within seven days as directed by

cri-wp-779-16

the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (Supra).

20. Word "Preliminary" is defined in Advanced Law Lexicon

Dictionary, 3rd Edition, as under :-

"Preliminary. - Introductory; initiatory; preceding; temporary; provisional - as preliminary examination, injunction, articles

of peace, etc."

The Investigating Agency need not embark upon a detailed

analytical investigation into the information or complaint received.

21. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on

the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Criminal Writ

Petition No. 1937 of 2010 - Charu Kishor Mehta vs. State of

Maharashtra and anr. Decided on 26/11/2010. In paras 19 and 20, the

Division Bench observed as under :-

19. It is no doubt true that normal/general rule is to leave the party to adopt remedy available under the Code, but this Court is not powerless to issue an appropriate writ when police have failed or avoided to use their powers available under the Code to unearth serious economic crimes complained of, if

cri-wp-779-16

evasiveness to book the real culprits is apparent in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, the

petitioner had sent a typed and detailed communication

addressed to Shri Rakesh Maria I.P.S., heading Economic Offences Wing, Crime branch C.I.D. in Police Commissioners Compound Annex -1 Building, 2nd floor opp. Mahatma Phule

Market at Mumbai -1. In view of the accusations made in details, in our view it was not a case of preliminary inquiry at all considering the serious nature of the accusations. The case,

obviously, was not covered within the excepted category so as

to resort to preliminary enquiry before registration of FIR. The police were duty bound to register the FIR and to proceed

with the investigation, in the facts and circumstances of the case. Economic offences wing did not, except making few diary entries, bother to inquire with the suspects. Dilly-

dallying tactics and evasiveness of police is apparent to us,

while we went through diary entries of EOW with the help of Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. Preliminary inquiry in this case did not really move further except for stopping at mere

reference made to the Charity Commissioner, Mumbai. Even assuming that preliminary enquiry in this case has rightly been resorted to, even then the police machinery was expected to

delve into details in respect of accusations made by the complainant to make it a real, effective, meaningful preliminary inquiry to summon & inquire with persons acquainted with facts of the case. In our opinion, the

cri-wp-779-16

preliminary inquiry herein was to do mere paper compliance so as to record that the nature of complaint is a civil dispute.

Notably, for the nature of allegations were serious such as

fabrication of record, criminal breach of trust, fraud, criminal conspiracy etc., by no stretch of imagination all of them can be passed off as a civil dispute.

20. It is well settled that the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can

always issue appropriate directions at the instance of an

aggrieved person if it is convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised by an Investigating Officer

mala fide. The malafide exercise of power need not be malafide in fact. It can be a case of malafide in law. We are conscious that this power is to be exercised in exceptional and

rarest of the rare cases where a clear case of abuse of power

and non-compliance with the provisions falling under Chapter XII of the Code is clearly made out requiring the interference of the High Court. It is true that in such cases, the High Court

cannot direct the police as to how the investigation is to be conducted but can always insist for the observance of process as provided for in the Code, i.e. recording of FIR< and to

register a criminal case and to conduct full and complete investigation and to file the final report in competent criminal court upon completion thereof."

cri-wp-779-16

22. We have carefully perused the report dated 11/4/2016. On

certain queries, the report dated 11/4/2016 itself supports the contention of

the petitioner that the Investigating Agency ought to have registered the

FIR and thereafter carried out the investigation. At the end of the report

the Investigating Officer had prayed to dismiss the petition with exemplary

costs. Considering the record placed before us, the reports filed by the

respondent - Investigating Agency, we feel that the Investigating Agency

contested this petition based on documentary material as if a mini trial is

being conducted. We are not expressing any opinion on the stand taken

by the contesting parties on merits.

23. We are not satisfied with the explanation given by the

respondent - Investigating Agency in not taking appropriate decision on

the complaint lodged by the petitioner diligently. A decision was taken

after near about 9 months of filing of the complaint. Delay in taking

decision was abnormal which ought to have been avoided. The petitioner

alleged that due to mismanagement of the companies affairs done by the

persons involved and named in the complaint, they suffered loss at least to

the tune of Rs.136 crores which capital was invested by the petitioner. It

was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that RAIF

cri-wp-779-16

comprises constituents like Public Sector Banks, Army Group Insurance

and LIC of India. An element of public money is involved. Therefore, it

was submitted by the learned counsel that this is not a case wherein the

complainant be relegated to alternate remedy at this stage. We find

substance in the submissions of the learned counsel on this point.

24. In view of the allegations made and information provided by

the complainant in the complaint, the affidavits filed by the complainant

and the reports submitted by the respondent - Investigating Agency, we are

of the view that necessary directions are required to be issued to the

respondents for registration of FIR.

ORDER

(I) The impugned communication dated 21/1/2016 issued

by Sr. Inspector of Police, EOW, Unit - V, Mumbai is

quashed and set aside.

(II) We direct the respondent - Investigating Agency,

Economic Offences Wing, Crime Branch, Mumbai to

register FIR on the subject complaint annexed at page

681 to the petition and commence investigation in

accordance with law.

cri-wp-779-16

(III) It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on

the merits of the information provided by the petitioner

or allegations made by the petitioner in the complaint.

All issues on merits are kept open.

(IV) It is expected that the Investigating Agency would

complete the investigation at the earliest and file

appropriate report consequent to the completion of

investigation. The investigation shall be conducted by

some other officer than the one who conducted

preliminary investigation and issued communication

dated 21/1/2016. The investigation shall be supervised

by a senior officer of the rank of Deputy Commissioner

of Police.

24. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

    (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)                                (NARESH H. PATIL,J.)