Ritu Parasher v. State of Maharashtra

Ritu Parasher v. State of MaharashtraIn the Excessive Court docket of BombayCrl. W.P. 413/2018Before Justice Z.A. Haq and Justice M.G. GiratkarDecided on November 26, 2019

Relevancy of the Case: Petition to quash an FIR for unlawful sanction of loans from a cooperative financial institution

Statutes and Provisions Concerned

The Data Know-how Act, 2000 (Part 65)
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Part 406, 408, 409, 467, 468, 471, 420, 201, 120B, 109, 34)
The Maharashtra Safety of Curiosity of Depositors Act, 1999 (Part 3, 4)
The Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (Part 83)

Related Info of the Case

The petitioner, a Medical Practitioner, was a Director of Samta Sahakari Financial institution Ltd., a cooperative society from March 1994 to March 2000.
The police filed an FIR on November 15, 2007, towards thirty people, together with the petitioner, for varied offences below the provisions given above.
The petitioner filed this petition searching for to quash the FIR, cost sheet dated June 30, 2010, and Common Felony Case 2190/2008, asserting her innocence and requesting discharge from prosecution.
An Enquiry Officer below Part 83 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, discovered irregularities within the financial institution’s functioning. The Officer’s findings particularly talked about the involvement of the Chief Govt Officer and Chairman in unlawful mortgage sanctions.
In a subsequent report, the Authorised Officer below Part 88 exonerated the petitioner from direct or oblique involvement. The Officer concluded that she was not chargeable for the loss precipitated to the financial institution.

Outstanding Arguments by the Advocates

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Enquiry Officer didn’t discover the petitioner chargeable for unlawful sanctions.
The respondent’s counsel argued that there’s ample materials towards the petitioner for prosecution, and the court docket shouldn’t train its extraordinary jurisdiction.

Opinion of the Bench

There is no such thing as a prima facie case towards the petitioner for prosecution below these provisions. Furthermore, the offence below Part 3 of the Maharashtra Safety of Curiosity of Depositors Act, 1999 shouldn’t be made out.

Ultimate Resolution

The bench quashed the FIR registered towards the petitioner whereas granting a deferment of eight weeks for the impact, operation and implementation of this judgment on the respondent’s request.

Aditi Mangesh Sawant, an undergraduate pupil at NMIMS Kirit P Mehta College of Regulation, Mumbai, ready this case abstract throughout her internship with The Cyber Weblog India in January/February 2024.