Facts: The petitioner filed a criminal complaint alleging that one Vijay Dangre, in collusion with officials of the Aditya Angha Multi-State Credit Cooperative Society, mortgaged the petitioner's property to obtain a loan of Rs. 4.20 crores using a bogus power of attorney. While the initial complaint was against Dangre, it was later amended to include the respondents, who are the Managing Director and officials of the Society. The petitioner contended that the officials failed to verify the property documents and the validity of the power of attorney before sanctioning the loan, thereby participating in the fraud. A police report filed under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. had previously observed that the dispute was primarily of a civil nature.
Procedural Posture: The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) initially rejected a prayer under Section 156(3) but proceeded under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. On May 30, 2024, the JMFC issued process against the respondents. The respondents challenged this before the Court of Sessions via a Criminal Revision. The Revisional Court set aside the JMFC's order of issuance of process. The petitioner then filed the present Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court to challenge the Revisional Court's order.
Issue: Whether the issuance of process against the Society's officials was legally sustainable in the absence of specific averments of criminal intent or direct participation in the alleged forgery and fraud?
Holding: No, the issuance of process was not sustainable. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Revisional Court's decision to set aside the process against the respondents.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that issuance of process is a "serious judicial act" and not a "routine formality". It requires the Magistrate to apply their mind to the specific allegations in the complaint. In this case, there were no specific averments in the original or amended complaint detailing how the Society officials committed a criminal act or possessed the requisite "mens rea". Merely asserting that they failed to verify documents or that the borrower was a member of the Society does not suffice to establish criminal collusion. The respondents acted in their official capacity, and the mortgage was based on a registered power of attorney. In the absence of material showing prior knowledge of fraud or intentional participation, criminal law cannot be set in motion against office bearers who were discharging their official duties.