BIMAL V BHATT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. IN all these petitions the petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings in Criminal Case nos. 89/p/2000, 89/b/p/2000 and 89/a/ p/2000 pending in the Court of the learned metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, mumbai on the ground of delay of about 18 years in disposing the said cases. Since the common questions of law and facts arise in all these petitions they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Rule, and by consent the rule is made returnable forthwith in all these petitions.

(3.) Few facts relevant for the decision are that the petitioner was one of the Director of National Co-operative Bank Ltd. and is the original accused No. 2 along with his father V. D. Bhatt in those cases. The accused No. 1 expired during the pendency of the proceeding some time in the year 1995. Some time in the year 1991 petitioner filed applications for discharge on the ground that the material placed on record were not sufficient to establish the allegations against him. When the said applications were being heard on 22-2-1994 in the Court of the metropolitan Magistrate, the learned APP requested for an order for further investigation in terms of section 178 (3) of the criminal Procedure Code and the same was granted. It is the case of the petitioner that by application dated 3-3-2001 it was brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate that the Investigating Officer had not yet filed any report in relation to the investigation which was carried out pursuant to the permission granted under section 178 (3) of Cri. P. C. While the said application was under consideration, the present writ petition came to be filed in February, 2001. It is also undisputed fact that the learned Magistrate by order dated 25-4-2005 had already disposed of the application for discharge holding that though no further report has been filed by the investigating agency, there is a prima facie case for framing of charge under sections 408, 467, 471, 477-A and 420 r/w 34 and section 120-B of I. P. C. against the petitioner in all the three cases.