M/S B C Biyani Projects Pvt Ltd vs The State Of Mah And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 4904 Bom

                                                         Cri.W.P.No. 537/09
                                     1


                  IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
              APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

               CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 537 OF 2009.

       M/s B.C. Biyani Projects Pvt. Ltd.,
       Through its Director
       Manoj Bansilal Biyani
       Age: 36 Years, Occu: Business,
       R/o. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon.              ....Petitioner.

               Versus

1.     The State of Maharashtra
       Through Secretary,
       Home Department, Mantralaya,
       Mumbai.

2.     Mr. R.R. Patil,
       Ex-Home Minister and Member of
       Legislative Assembly, Maharashtra,
       Vidhan Bhavan Mumbai.

3.     The Superintendent of Police
       Crime Investigation Department,
       Nashik.

4.     Mr. B.R. Chavan,
       Police Inspector (CID)
       Jalgaon.

5.     UCO Bank,
       (Government of India Undertaking)
       Branch at Bhusawal,
       Through its Branch Manager.

6.     Santosh Chhabildas Chaudhari,
       Member of Legislative Assembly,
       Age: 46 Years, Occu: Business
       R/o Bhusawal, Dist-Jalgaon.                ....Respondents.

Mr. P.M. Shah, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. N.B. Surywanshi, Advocate for
petitioner.
Mr. S.J. Salgare, APP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3/State.




 ::: Uploaded on - 26/07/2017                ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:00:49 :::
                                                                   Cri.W.P.No. 537/09
                                             2


Mr. G.V. Wani, Advocate for respondent No. 6.


                                   CORAM     :   T.V. NALAWADE AND
                                                 SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

                                   DATED :       JULY 21, 2017.

JUDGMENT : [PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.]

.                 The petition is filed to challenge the order made by

respondent No. 2, the then Home Minister of Maharashtra State, by

which C.I.D. inquiry was ordered by him on the basis of complaint

made by respondent No. 6, who was M.L.A. at the relevant time.

Both the sides are heard.

2) The submissions made and the record show that on

18.11.2008 respondent No. 6 gave representation to the Home

Minister, who was also Deputy Chief Minister of the State and he

requested to make inquiry in to the irregularities which were

indicating fraud in respect of loan transactions between UCO Bank,

Bhusawal and the petitioner. Specific allegation was made that by

creating false record of property, loan of huge amount was taken

from bank. Allegation was made that the property which was shown

to be mortgaged was not having the value shown in the record and

this property was already mortgaged with the co-operative societies

and banks and so, that property could not have been accepted as

security for giving loan. Allegation was also made that the authority

Cri.W.P.No. 537/09

created to give report with regard to the financial condition and

value of the property was bye-passed and particular advocate was

appointed to create the record of recommendation and so, the

inquiry needs to be made through C.I.D. On the same day, the Home

Minister made an order and directed Additional D.G.P. (C.I.D.) to

make inquiry. On that basis, order was sent to Superintendent of

Police, L.C.B. Nashik to P.I., L.C.B. Jalgaon and he was directed to

make inquiry in to the allegations. Present petition came to be filed

on 26.6.2009 and on 29.8.2009, this Court granted stay to the

C.I.D. inquiry which was being conducted by respondent No. 4.

3) In reply affidavit, respondents have contended that only

inquiry was ordered to ascertain the truth and as there is power with

the police and the Government to make inquiry, the petitioner ought

to have waited till some action was taken by competent authority

after receipt of inquiry report. It is contended that after making

inquiry, the Inquiry Officer will submit his report along with papers of

inquiry and only after that it can be ascertained as to whether there

is any truth in to the aforesaid allegations.

4) Admittedly, no crime is registered on the basis of

representation which was made by respondent No. 6. There is power

with police to make inquiry before registration of crime and before

Cri.W.P.No. 537/09

taking further action. At this stage, if the order itself and the inquiry

which is already started is quashed and set aside, it will not be

possible to ascertain as to whether there is truth in to the

allegations. So, due to this circumstance and as there is power with

the respondents to make such inquiry, the order of inquiry cannot be

quashed and set aside.

5) The learned Senior Counsel for petitioner submitted that

there is business rivalry between the petitioner and respondent No.

6. He drew the attention of this Court to some correspondence made

by respondent No. 6 in that regard. There may be force in the

submission that petitioner and respondent No. 6 are business rivals,

but that does not mean that the allegations made by respondent No.

6 cannot be inquired in to. This Court holds that there are no merits

in the present proceeding and it is premature to take cognizance of

such matter. In the result, the petition stands dismissed. Rule is

discharged. Interim relief is vacated.

       [SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.]             [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]



ssc/