High Court
Legal Reasoning
cwp-1085.24+1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1085 OF 2024Prashant S/o Shivaji Kurhe,Age-38 years, Occu:Nil,R/o-N-2, J-6-2, J-Sector,Cidco, Mukundwadi, Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra,2) Ajanta Pharma Limited, Through its General Manager, R/o-31-0, MIDC, Chikalthana, Aurangabad,3) Ajanta Pharma Limited, Through its Manager, R/o-31-0, MIDC, Chikalthana, Aurangabad,4) Yogesh Mannalal Agrawal, Age-52 years, Occu:Managing Director, R/o-Ajanta Pharma Limited, Ajanta House, Charkop, Kandiwali West, Mumbai,5) Rajesh Mannalal Agrawal, Age-47 years, Occu: Jt. Managing Director, R/o-Ajanta Pharma Limited, Ajanta House, Charkop, Kandiwali West, Mumbai,6) Satish Hanumant Agrawal, Age-60 years, Occu:Asso. Vice President, R/o-Ajanta Pharma Limited, Ajanta House, Charkop, Kandiwali West, Mumbai,
Legal Reasoning
cwp-1085.24+27) Gopal S/o Nandkishor Rathi, Age-70 years, Occu: Asso. Vice President, R/o-Ajanta Pharma Limited, Ajanta House, Charkop, Kandiwali West, Mumbai. ...RESPONDENTS ... Ms. Karishma S. Sarin Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. V.K. Kotecha, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr. Rajendra S. Deshmukh, Senior Counsel i/by Mr. Rahul Joshi Advocate and Mr. A.S. Gaikwad Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 7. … WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4128 OF 2024 [IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1085 OF 2024]1) Ajanta Pharma Limited, Through its General Manager, Add:-31-0, MIDC Industrial Area, Chikalthana, District Aurangabad 431210,2) Ajanta Pharma Limited, Through its Manager, Add:-31-0, MIDC Industrial Area, Chikalthana, District Aurangabad 431210,3) Yogesh Agrawal, Age-52 years, Occu:Managing Director, Address:Ajanta Pharma Limited, Ajanta House, Charkop, Kandiwali West, Mumbai-4000674) Rajesh Agrawal, Age-47 years, Occu: Joint Managing Director, Address:Ajanta Pharma Limited, Ajanta House, Charkop, Kandiwali West, Mumbai-400067, cwp-1085.24+35) Satish Agrawal, Age-60 years, Occu:Assoc. Vice President, Address:Ajanta Pharma Limited, Ajanta House, Charkop, Kandiwali West, Mumbai-400067,6) Gopal Rathi, Age-70 years, Occu: Assoc. Vice President, R/o-Ajanta Pharma Limited, Ajanta House, Charkop, Kandiwali West, Mumbai-400067. ...APPLICANTS VERSUS 1) Prashant S/o Shivaji Kurhe, Age-38 years, Occu:Nil, R/o-N-2, J-6-2, J-Sector, Cidco, Mukundwadi, Aurangabad.2) The State of Maharashtra ...RESPONDENTS … Mr. Rajendra S. Deshmukh, Senior Counsel i/by Mr. Rahul Joshi Advocate and Mr. A.S. Gaikwad Advocate for Applicants. Ms. Karishma S. Sarin Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. V.K. Kotecha, A.P.P. for Respondent No.2. ... AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.609 OF 2024 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4124 OF 2024] [IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.609 OF 2024]1) Ajanta Pharma Limited, Through its General Manager, Shri. Shantaram S/o Sakharam Nemade, R/o-31-0, MIDC Industrial Area, Chikalthana, District Aurangabad 431210, cwp-1085.24+42) Ajanta Pharma Limited, Through its Manager, Shri Sunil S/o Rajaram Mahajan, Age-54 years, Occu:Service, R/o-31-0, MIDC Industrial Area, Chikalthana, District Aurangabad 431210,3) Yogesh S/o Mannalal Agrawal, Age-52 years, Occu:Managing Director, Address:Ajanta Pharma Limited, Ajanta House, Charkop, Kandiwali West, Mumbai-4000674) Rajesh S/o Mannalal Agrawal, Age-47 years, Occu: Joint Managing Director, Address:Ajanta Pharma Limited, Ajanta House, Charkop, Kandiwali West, Mumbai-400067,5) Satish S/o Hanumant Agrawal, Age-60 years, Occu:Assoc. Vice President, Address:Ajanta Pharma Limited, Ajanta House, Charkop, Kandiwali West, Mumbai-400067,6) Gopal S/o Nandkishor Rathi, Age-70 years, Occu: Assoc. Vice President, R/o-Ajanta Pharma Limited, Ajanta House, Charkop, Kandiwali West, Mumbai-400067. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Officer Incharge, Police Station, MIDC, Cidco, Aurangabad,2) Prashant S/o Shivaji Kurhe, Age-38 years, Occu:Nil, R/o-N-2, J-6-2, J-Sector, Cidco, Mukundwadi, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS cwp-1085.24+5 … Mr. Rajendra S. Deshmukh, Senior Counsel i/by Mr. Rahul Joshi Advocate and Mr. A.S. Gaikwad Advocate for Petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No.609 of 2024 and for Applicants in Criminal Application No.4124 of 2024. Mr. V.K. Kotecha, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 - State in both matters. Ms. Karishma S. Sarin Advocate for Respondent No.2 in both matters. … CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 5th AUGUST, 2025 ORDER [PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] :1.Criminal Application No.4128 of 2024 has been filed inCriminal Writ Petition No.1085 of 2024 and Criminal ApplicationNo.4124 of 2024 has been filed in Criminal Writ Petition No.609of 2024. As both these Applications have been filed forproduction of documents in respective Writ Petitions, CriminalApplication No.4128 of 2024 and Criminal Application No.4124 of2024 stand allowed.2.Criminal Writ Petition No.1085 of 2024 and Criminal WritPetition No.609 of 2024 are arising out of the same matter andtherefore they are proposed to be disposed of by this commonorder. cwp-1085.24+63.Before turning to the submissions, the background leadingto these Writ Petitions is required to be considered. Thepetitioner – informant in Writ Petition No.1085 of 2024(hereafter referred to as “the petitioner Prashant”) had filedCriminal Miscellaneous Application No.1619 of 2022, before thelearned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad for direction tosend the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of theCode of Criminal Procedure contending that the accused personsnamed in the application have committed offence punishableunder Sections 417, 420, 424, 426, 109, 276, 284, 504, 507read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. By order dated 4thMarch 2024, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, (CourtNo.5), Aurangabad allowed the said application. Immediately,the accused persons named therein had filed Criminal RevisionApplication No.81 of 2024 before the Sessions Court,Aurangabad on 11th March 2024. It appears that the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, had stayed theoperation of the order passed by the learned Magistrate underSection 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said orderwas dictated in the open Court by the learned AdditionalSessions Judge, Aurangabad on 16th March 2024, around 3.30p.m., however, before the order could reach to the MIDC, Cidco cwp-1085.24+7Police Station, Aurangabad, the FIR came to be registered at15.47 Hours on the same day i.e. 16th March 2024 vide CrimeNo.128 of 2024. The accused persons named therein, had thenapproached this Court by filing Criminal Writ Petition No.609 of2024, which we are finally deciding right now, and then thisCourt by order dated 1st April 2024, had stayed the furtherinvestigation into the crime till the revision is finally disposed of.Directions were given to the learned Sessions Judge to expeditethe hearing of the revision and decide it as expeditiously aspossible. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Application No.81 of2024, came to be allowed on 16th May 2024 after hearing boththe sides and the order passed by the learned Judicial MagistrateFirst Class, Court No.5, Aurangabad in Criminal MiscellaneousApplication No.1619 of 2022 on 4th March 2024, was quashedand set aside. Now, the petitioner Prashant has filed CriminalWrit Petition No.1085 of 2024 to challenge the order of theRevisional Court and Criminal Writ Petition No.609 of 2024 hasbeen filed for quashment of the First Information Report (forshort “the FIR”) by the original accused.4.Taking into consideration the background, we wouldproceed further to consider the rival contentions. cwp-1085.24+85.Heard learned Advocate Ms. Karishma Sarin appearing forthe petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No.1085 of 2024 and forrespondent No.2 in Criminal Writ Petition No.609 2024, learnedAPP Mr. Kotecha appearing for respondent No.1 State in both thePetitions and learned Senior Counsel Mr. Rajendra Deshmukhinstructed by Mr. Rahul Joshi Advocate and Mr. A.S. GaikwadAdvocate for the petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No.609 of2024 and for respondent Nos.2 to 7 in Criminal Writ PetitionNo.1085 of 2024.6.Since the learned Revisional Court has allowed the Revisionand set aside the order of learned Magistrate passed underSection 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we directedthe learned Advocate for the petitioner Prashant to argue first.She has taken us through the contents of the CriminalMiscellaneous Application No.1619 of 2022, documents attached,the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 4th March 2024and also the order passed by the learned Revisional Court. Shehas submitted that the petitioner Prashant was the ex-employeeof original accused No.1 company, Ajanta Pharma Limited. He isa qualified pharmacist. He had come to know about theirregularities and illegal activities in production in the company,on 1st February 2015. According to the petitioner Prashant, cwp-1085.24+9respondent company is engaged in unfair mal-practices andunethical production of drugs without any license from theCentral Government or the State Government. Therefore, hemade complaint to the plant in-charge of Chikalthana factory, Mr.Nemade. As the petitioner Prashant was the qualifiedpharmacist, it was his duty and responsibility for certifying thedrugs of the company and thereby he was involved in theprocess. When those illegalities and irregularities were noted, hehad made the complaint. A meeting was also arranged withMr. Gopal Rathi, who was the director of the company (accusedNo.6) and Vice President Mr. Satish Agrawal (accused No.5).However, there was absolutely no response from accused Nos. 5and 6. On the contrary, the petitioner Prashant was threatenedthat if he acts with smartness, then he will have to loose his jobor it would be open for the petitioner Prashant to leave the job.The petitioner Prashant was then harassed by the companymanagement. Nobody had taken the complaint of the petitionerPrashant seriously. The company was producing Beta LectumAntibiotics from 1990 to 2015, without any authorized licenseand was exporting it to Iraq. Proof for the said export is thenavailable. The BIBA Multi Vitamin Syrup Batch No.0483A hadfailed in stability, still it was exported in the foreign countries by cwp-1085.24+10the accused company. The documents to that effect have beenpersonally seen by the petitioner Prashant. All the accused alongwith production manager and quality assurance officer werehaving knowledge about the same. The company has cheatedthe State as well as the Central Government and also to theFood and Drugs Administration. Even the Commissioner in Foodand Drugs Administration or Inspector in the said departmenthave not carried out their duties honestly. The accused companywas also producing, manufacturing, packaging Ayurvedic,Allopathic and Beta Lactum in its Chikalthana plant. In fact it wasnot permitted as per the norms of the Food and DrugsAdministration and guidelines of the Government. TheGovernment guidelines show that there should be separate plantwith all facilities. Further, various other products named in theapplication were produced in one plant only thereby even thehygiene and other things have not been followed. Ultimatelythen the petitioner Prashant has sent two notices through hisAdvocate to accused Nos.3 to 6. The accused persons simplydenied the allegations. The illegal and unethical productivity ofdrugs was against the human beings and entire society andtherefore, the petitioner Prashant was agitating it. When thepetitioner Prashant tried to lodge police complaint, they refused cwp-1085.24+11to take the same and therefore, he had approached the PoliceCommissioner, Aurangabad on 14th September 2021. The PoliceCommissioner has sent the said complaint to Cidco PoliceStation. Again it appears that the Inspector of the Police Stationtold that they cannot register the FIR against the accused andthen it was stated that if the Court gives direction to the PoliceAuthorities to make investigation then only they can investigate.The Police Authorities and accused persons pressurized thepetitioner Prashant to withdraw the complaint on 26th November2021. 7.Learned Advocate for the petitioner Prashant furthersubmitted that all these facts were taken note of by the learnedMagistrate and especially taking into consideration the decisionin Lalita Kumari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2014)2SCC 1, when Police had failed to take cognizance of thecognizable offence, had allowed the application and directed thePolice to make investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code ofCriminal Procedure. The learned Revisional Court erred inallowing the Revision Application. It has been held that theguidelines in Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC287, have not been followed by the learned Magistrate and therewas total non-compliance of the mandatory provisions. In fact all cwp-1085.24+12the mandatory provisions were complied with. The copy of thecomplaint which was given to the Commissioner of Police on 14thSeptember 2021, was produced along with the CriminalMiscellaneous Application. Learned Revisional Court had furthererred in observing that the petitioner Prashant has producedvarious documents on record showing that licenses to producedrugs were taken by Ajanta Pharma Company and the saidlicenses have been got renewed from time to time. Even asregards production of Beta Lectum is concerned, such licensewas produced by the complainant himself i.e. petitionerPrashant. All these documents were not considered by thelearned Magistrate, are the observations and so also in respectof the observations regarding Drugs and Cosmetics Act, note wastaken of Section 32 of the said Act, which specifies theauthorities to initiate action. The cognizance of the same can betaken only by the Sessions Court and therefore the Magistrate’sorder was held to be illegal. In fact the learned Magistrate hadconsidered the offences under the Indian Penal Code only andthere was no question of involvement of the Drugs andCosmetics Act. Therefore, the order passed by the learnedRevisional Court is erroneous and deserves to be quashed andset aside. cwp-1085.24+138.Learned Advocate Ms. Sarin appearing for the petitionerPrashant, who is also respondent No.2 in Criminal Writ PetitionNo.609 of 2024, supported the order passed by the learnedMagistrate and submitted that the said Writ Petition by theoriginal accused persons deserves to be dismissed. 9.Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Deshmukh, instructed bylearned Advocate Mr. Joshi for respondent Nos.2 to 7 in CriminalWrit Petition No.1085 of 2024 and the petitioners in CriminalWrit Petition No.609 of 2024, i.e. original accused personssubmitted that the learned Revisional Court has correctly heldthat the mandatory provisions required to be followed as per thedecision in Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of U.P., (supra), havenot been followed. There was no such document produced by thepetitioner Prashant to show that he had approached theconcerned police station. The mandatory conditions underSection 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure have not beenfollowed. Learned Senior Counsel, in support of his submissions,relied on the affidavit-in-reply of Shantaram Sakharam Nemade,General Manager of Ajanta Pharma Limited on behalf ofrespondent Nos.2 to 7 and submitted that even in Criminal WritPetition No.1085 of 2024, the compliance has not been shown. cwp-1085.24+14Under such circumstance, the decision by the Revisional Court isrequired to be upheld. Further, it can be seen that along withcriminal application before the learned Magistrate the petitionerPrashant has filed those documents also which are theconfidential documents of the company. The petitioner Prashanthas not explained as to how he is having custody of thosedocuments. The documents along with the application before thelearned Magistrate shows that the production of Beta Lectumwas approved by the officers of the Food and DrugsAdministration from time to time. No irregularity or illegality wasfound. There was no question of ingredients of offence underSection 417, 420 of the Indian Penal Code as there was nodelivery of any property. The licenses have been granted forproduction of Ayurvedic medicines also and it will have to bepresumed that all the necessary steps or stages prior to thegrant of licenses have been undergone as required under thelaw. Without going into the documents and without consideringas to whether there is any such cognizable offence that istranspiring, the learned Magistrate had passed the order dated4th March 2024 and therefore, on merits also the RevisionalCourt was justified in quashing the order passed by the learnedMagistrate. cwp-1085.24+1510.Though there appears to be the decision by the RevisionalCourt on two aspects i.e. one regarding non-compliance of themandatory provisions under the guidelines of PriyankaSrivastava vs. State of U.P., (supra) and second is on merits, ifwe consider that the first ground is correct then we need not gointo the second ground.11.Before turning to the scrutiny of facts, therefore, we wouldlike to consider the legal position. Certainly, we are guided bythe decision in Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of U.P., (supra),when it comes to passing an order under Section 156(3) of theCode of Criminal Procedure, wherein it has been observed that :-“27.In our considered opinion, a stage has come in thiscountry where Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedureapplications are to be supported by an affidavit duly swornby the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdictionof the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, thelearned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truthand also can verify the veracity of the allegations. Thisaffidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We arecompelled to say so as such kind of applications are beingfiled in a routine manner without taking any responsibilitywhatsoever only to harass certain persons.That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarmingwhen one tries to pick up people who are passing ordersunder a statutory provision which can be challenged under cwp-1085.24+16the framework of said Act or Under Article 226 of theConstitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undueadvantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determinedto settle the scores.We have already indicated that there has to be priorapplications Under Section 154(1) and 154(3) while filing apetition Under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should beclearly spelt out in the application and necessary documentsto that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a directionthat an application Under Section 156(3) be supported by anaffidavit so that the person making the application should beconscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit ismade. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, hewill be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This willdeter him to casually invoke the authority of the MagistrateUnder Section 156(3). That apart, we have already statedthat the veracity of the same can also be verified by thelearned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature ofallegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as anumber of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonialdispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medicalnegligence cases, corruption cases and the cases wherethere is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminalprosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari are beingfiled. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be awareof the delay in lodging of the FIR.”12.In Anurag Bhatnagar and another vs. State (NCT of Delhi)and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1514, the Hon’ble SupremeCourt had formulated five points and point No.1 was “(I)Whether an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC could cwp-1085.24+17have been filed without approaching the police authorities.” Therelevant observations are thus:-“21. Sub-section (3) of Section 154 CrPC lays down that ifthe information of a cognizable offence given to the officer-in-charge of the police station is not being recorded or isbeing refused to be recorded, the informant may send thesubstance of the said information to the Superintendent ofPolice concerned in writing and by post, who upon beingsatisfied that such information discloses a cognizable offencewill either direct for the investigation of the offence or mayhimself investigate the same. 22. A plain and simple reading of Section 154 CrPC as awhole makes it imperative upon the informant to firstapproach the officer-in-charge of the police station for thepurposes of lodging an FIR in respect of a cognizable offenceand where the Police refuses to record such information, theremedy is to approach the concerned Superintendent ofPolice. It is only when no action is taken even by theSuperintendent of Police and the information of commissionof a cognizable offence is not being recorded by the officer-in-charge of the police station or even by the Superintendentof Police, that the person aggrieved or the informant maymove the court of the Magistrate concerned to get the FIRregistered and lodged with the concerned police station. 23……………………………………………..24……………………………………………..25……………………………………………..26.On a conspicuous reading of the provisions of Sections154, 156 and 190 of the CrPC together, it is crystal clear thatan informant who wants to report about a commission of a cwp-1085.24+18cognizable offence has to, in the first instance, approach theofficer-in-charge of the police station for setting the criminallaw into motion by lodging an FIR. However, if such aninformation is not accepted by the officer-in-charge of thepolice station and he refuses to record it, the remedy of theinformant is to approach the Superintendent of Policeconcerned. It is only subsequent to availing the aboveopportunities if he is not successful, he may approach theMagistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC for necessary action orof taking cognizance in accordance with Section 190 of theCrPC.”13.Further in Anurag Bhatnagar and another vs. State (NCT ofDelhi) and another, (supra), it is observed in Para-29 that “It iswell recognized in law that the person aggrieved must first exhaust thealternative remedies available to him in law before approaching thecourt of law. In other words, he cannot ordinarily approach the courtdirectly.“ Thus, herein also it has been held that the directions inPriyanka Srivastava vs. State of U.P., (supra), are mandatory.14.Now, recently, in S. N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors. vs. State ofKarnataka & Anr., [Criminal Appeal No.___ of 2025 (@ SpecialLeave Petition (Criminal) No.8626 of 2024)], after taking note ofthe decisions including Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of U.P.,(supra), it has been observed thus :-“We sum up our conclusions on this score as follows : (i)Directions issued in Priyanka Srivastava (Supra) are cwp-1085.24+19mandatory; (ii) Guidelines laid down in Priyanka Srivastava(Supra) operate prospectively; (iii) Non-filing of thesupporting affidavit is a curable defect, but must be curedbefore the Magistrate passes any substantive order on thecomplaint/application, and; (iv) if the Magistrate proceedswithout the requisite affidavit, such order/any consequentialorders/proceedings can be quashed on the sole ground ofnon-compliance with Priyanka Srivastava (Supra).”15.Though this case was mainly in respect of non filing of FIR,yet the last is relevant for us in Priyanka Srivastava vs. State ofU.P., (supra), wherein it has been observed thus :-“26. At this stage it is seemly to state that power underSection 156(3) warrants application of judicial mind. A courtof law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at thestage of Section 154 of the code. A litigant at his own whimcannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principledand really grieved citizen with clean hands must have freeaccess to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens butwhen pervert litigations takes this route to harass theirfellows citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb thesame.”16.Thus, taking into consideration all the above threepronouncements, it is to be seen as to whether in this case therewas compliance. Along with the complaint application i.e.Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1619 of 2022, thepetitioner Prashant had not filed the complaint in writing cwp-1085.24+20tendered by him to the Police Station. His oral report might nothave been taken but he should have given the written complaintto M.I.D.C., Cidco Police Station. He directly approached theCommissioner of Police, Aurangabad, by filing application on 14thSeptember 2021. Then he says that the Commissioner of Policehad forwarded the said complaint to M.I.D.C. Cidco Police Stationand thereafter he was called to the Police Station. But then hehas given in writing to the Police Station that he has nocomplaint to make. Now, he is coming with the case that saiddocument was taken forcibly from him as the police authoritiesand accused persons had pressurized him to withdraw thecomplaint. He has said that he has blindly signed on theSamajpatra, dated 26th November 2021, in the M.I.D.C. PoliceStation, Aurangabad. That means whatever application he hasmade to the Commissioner of Police on 14th September 2021,has been taken back by him. Thereafter, there was absolutely noefforts by the petitioner Prashant to file complaint application tothe Police Station in writing and then to approach theCommissioner of Police once again before he had taken up theprocess in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1619 of 2022.In short, there was absolutely no compliance of Section 154(3)of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under such circumstance, the cwp-1085.24+21order passed by the learned Magistrate on 4th March 2024 suffersfrom illegality. That order was rightly struck down by the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad on 16th May 2024 inCriminal Revision Application No.81 of 2024. The FIR bearingCrime No.128 of 2024, registered with M.I.D.C. Cidco PoliceStation, Aurangabad on 16th March 2024, therefore, deserves tobe quashed and set aside.17.As aforesaid, there is no necessity for this Court to go intothe merits, as to whether the complaint application i.e. CriminalMiscellaneous Application No.1619 of 2022 was disclosing anycognizable offence or not. It would be otherwise wastage of timeand increasing unnecessarily length of the Judgment.18.For the above reasons, we proceed to pass followingorder:- O R D E R(I)Criminal Application No.4128 of 2024 andCriminal Application No.4124 of 2024, forproduction of documents, stand allowed.(II)Criminal Writ Petition No.1085 of 2024stands dismissed. cwp-1085.24+22(III)Criminal Writ Petition No.609 of 2024 standsallowed.(IV)The First Information Report vide CrimeNo.128 of 2024, registered with M.I.D.C. CidcoPolice Station, Aurangabad, on 16th March 2024,for the offence punishable under Sections 417,420, 424, 426, 109, 276, 504, 507 of the IndianPenal Code, stands quashed and set aside asagainst petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 i.e. - 1) AjantaPharma Limited, Through its General Manager,Shri. Shantaram S/o Sakharam Nemade, 2) AjantaPharma Limited, Through its Manager, Shri SunilS/o Rajaram Mahajan, 3) Yogesh S/o MannalalAgrawal, 4) Rajesh S/o Mannalal Agrawal,5) Satish S/o Hanumant Agrawal and 6) Gopal S/oNandkishor Rathi. [SANJAY A. DESHMUKH] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGE asb/SEP25