Gujarat High Court
Jivrajbhai Bhikhabhai Gadhiya vs State Of Gujarat on 5 September, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23472/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/09/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 23472 of 2019
==========================================================
JIVRAJBHAI BHIKHABHAI GADHIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR SOAHAM JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 05/09/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of preferring present application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-original accused No.3, seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, inter alia, praying for quashing of the FIR being C.R.No.I-142 of 2019 registered with Keshod Police Station, District Junagadh for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 409 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, qua the applicant.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Rathin P. Raval for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Soaham Joshi for the respondent - State.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Rathin Raval submits that Page 1 of 18 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 10 21:06:28 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23472/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/09/2024 undefined the complainant is a businessman and he supplied goods of groundnut worth Rs.8,82,000/- to accused Nos.1 and 2 - partners of Shrinath Traders and at the time of entering into transaction, accused No.1 assured that he will pay the said amount within two to three days. However, as the complainant did not get his money, he demanded the said amount from the accused Nos. 1 and 2 but by assigning one or another reason, accused Nos. 1 and 2 evaded to pay the said amount and thereafter they also switched off their mobile phones. He further submits that at the time of demanding the amount, number of times conversation took place between the complainant and accused persons and at the relevant point of time complainant came to know that all the four accused persons are partners of the said partnership firm. Therefore, complaint is registered against all the four accused persons wherein applicant accused is shown as accused No.3.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Raval submits that present applicant is not directly or indirectly connected with the commission of crime. He is also not the partner of the said partnership firm. The applicant is also not having any business relations with the other accused persons. He further submits that in fact the accused No.4 - broker had taken Rs.5 lakh from the applicant and on number of occasions reminders were sent by the applicant to accused No.4 Page 2 of 18 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 10 21:06:28 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23472/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/09/2024 undefined to repay the amount but instead of repaying the said amount, he administered threat to the applicant that if applicant will demand the said amount in that event he has to face dire consequences and he will not return the said money. Learned advocate Mr. Raval has further submitted that if the Court would make cursory glance upon the allegations levelled against the applicant in the FIR in question, in that event, it would be found out that only on the basis of information provided by other co-accused - accused No.4 present applicant accused has been arraigned as an accused by the complainant. The present applicant has never got any opportunity to discuss about any business transaction with the complainant and said fact itself proves that solely on the count of certain information provided by accused No.4, present applicant has been shown as accused in the body of the FIR. Learned advocate Mr. Raval further submits that if the recitals of the allegations levelled in the body of the FIR are to be read in toto, in that event, it would be found out that the transaction took place between the accused persons and complainant is commercial transaction and complainant has tried to give criminal colour to the civil dispute. He further submits that if after supplyment of certain goods to the accused persons, complainant could not be able to recover the amount of the said goods, the complainant has to file civil suit to recover the said amount but instead of instituting Page 3 of 18 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 10 21:06:28 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23472/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/09/2024 undefined civil suit, criminal complaint is registered against the accused persons to exert pressure upon the accused persons and with a sole intent to recover the amount. Learned advocate Mr. Raval further submits that if the allegations levelled against the present applicant are to be read in its entirety, in that event, it would be found out that basic, essential and requisite ingredients of the charges levelled against the applicant are found missing. Hence, prosecution instituted against the present applicant is required to be quashed.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Raval further submits that immediately after registration of the FIR in question, applicant has approached before this Court and the Coordinate Bench of this Court, after considering the allegations levelled against the applicant in the body of the FIR and the arguments canvassed by learned advocate for the applicant, has directed the investigating officer to carry out the investigation but he shall not file charge-sheet and take any coercive steps against the applicant and therefore charge-sheet is not submitted by the investigating officer. He further submits that investigating officer might have recorded the statements of certain witnesses. Thus, considering the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter, application may be allowed by quashing the FIR qua the applicant.
Page 4 of 18 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 10 21:06:28 IST 2024NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23472/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/09/2024 undefined
6. Learned APP Mr. Soaham Joshi has objected present application with vehemence and submitted that present applicant accused and complainant both are businessmen and they entered into some business transaction and as a part of business transaction, complainant has supplied goods of groundnut worth Rs.8,82,000/- to the accused persons. However, instead of paying the amount of goods, the accused persons have tried to evade payment of goods and therefore as a last resort, complainant has registered present FIR. Learned APP Mr. Joshi has submitted that immediately after registration of the FIR, applicant approached before this Court and the Coordinate Bench of this Court has directed the investigating officer to carry out the investigation but he shall not file charge-sheet and take any coercive steps against the applicant. The investigating officer has, therefore, recorded statement of number of persons and also collected certain documents. He has submitted that admittedly the applicant accused was not in touch with the complainant and he had not entered into any business transaction with the complainant, however, during the course of conversation took place between the complainant and accused No.1, name of the present applicant accused has come on surface on the basis of statement made by the co-accused that he is one of the partners of the partnership firm and therefore investigation was carried out in that direction. He Page 5 of 18 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 10 21:06:28 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23472/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/09/2024 undefined has submitted that the documents collected by the investigating officer have been verified and scrutinized by the investigating officer wherein name of the present applicant accused is not found as one of the partners of the said partnership firm. The investigating officer has recorded statement of number of persons from which it is found out that on the basis of statement given by accused No.4 name of the present applicant accused has come on surface. Learned APP Mr. Joshi has further submitted that FIR is filed against total four accused persons and it is revealed that accused No.2 viz. Dhirubhai Dayabhai Chovatiya is not found available but he has been shown as a partner in the partnership firm. The accused No.4 is a broker. Hence, considering the above stated factual aspects, application may be rejected.
7. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it is found out from the record that complainant has registered FIR in question against total four accused persons. Applicant is shown as accused No.3 in the FIR. It is alleged by the complainant that accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the partners of a partnership firm to whom complainant has sold goods of groundnut worth Rs.8,82,000/-. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 assured to make the payment of the said goods within 2 to 3 Page 6 of 18 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 10 21:06:28 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23472/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/09/2024 undefined days. However, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 have not made the payment of the said goods and therefore as a last resort complainant has lodged the FIR. It is alleged by the complainant that applicant is also one of the partners of the partnership firm and therefore he has been arraigned as an accused in the FIR in question.
8. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the applicant that he is not the partner of the partnership firm and he is not at all knowing the accused Nos. 1 and 2. He is a farmer and not residing at the address shown in the FIR. He is resident of Amreli District and he never came into contact with the complainant and/or accused Nos. 1 and 2. He has not interacted with the complainant regarding supply of goods in question. The applicant has been arraigned as an accused on the basis of the statement of the co-accused. As the applicant has been arraigned as an accused as one of the partners of the partnership firm, investigating officer has carried out investigation in that direction and recorded statement of number of witnesses and collected number of documents. Learned APP has read the statements of those witnesses and I have also gone through the contents of those statements. It is nowhere mentioned in the statement of any of the witnesses that applicant is the partner of the partnership firm as alleged in the FIR. Moreover, the leave and licence agreement of the shop referred in the FIR is also Page 7 of 18 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 10 21:06:28 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23472/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/09/2024 undefined executed by and between the accused No.1 and owner of the shop. Moreover, the partners of the partnership firm have also supplied documents of partnership firm to obtain various licences and/or permissions from various Government Authorities wherein also name of the present applicant accused is not found out. Therefore, considering the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter, prosecution has failed to prove that applicant is one of the partners of the partnership firm. Except statement of co-accused, no material is brought on record from which it can be said that applicant is connected with the accused persons and/or complainant in any manner. It is also pertinent to note that accused No.2 is missing.
9. At this juncture, I may quote with profit the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2024 INSC 626.
24. This Court in its decision in S.W. Palanitkar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2002) 1 SCC 241 expounded the difference in the ingredients required for constituting an of offence of criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) viz-a-viz the offence of cheating (Section 420). The relevant observations read as under: -
"9. The ingredients in order to constitute a criminal breach of trust are: (i) entrusting a person with property or with any dominion over property, (ii) that person entrusted (a) dishonestly misappropriating or converting that Page 8 of 18 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 10 21:06:28 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23472/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/09/2024 undefined property to his own use; or (b) dishonestly using or disposing of that property or wilfully suffering any other person so to do in violation (i) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, (ii) of any legal contract made, touching the discharge of such trust.
10. The ingredients of an offence of cheating are: (i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him, (ii)(a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii) in cases covered by (ii)(b), the act of omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property."
25. What can be discerned from the above is that the offences of criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) and cheating (Section 420 IPC) have specific ingredients. In order to constitute a criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC): -
1) There must be entrustment with person for property or dominion over the property, and
2) The person entrusted: -
a) dishonestly misappropriated or converted property to his own use, or
b) dishonestly used or disposed of the property or willfully suffers any other person so to do in violation of:
i. any direction of law prescribing the method in which the trust is discharged; or Page 9 of 18 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 10 21:06:28 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23472/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/09/2024 undefined ii. legal contract touching the discharge of trust (see: S.W.P. Palanitkar (supra).
Similarly, in respect of an offence under Section 420 IPC, the essential ingredients are: -
1) deception of any person, either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or by omission;
2) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property, or
3) the consent that any persons shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit (see: Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, (2009) 7 SCC 712 : (2009) Cr.L.J. 3462 (SC))
26. Further, in both the aforesaid sections, mens rea i.e. intention to defraud or the dishonest intention must be present, and in the case of cheating it must be there from the very beginning or inception.
27. In our view, the plain reading of the complaint fails to spell out any of the aforesaid ingredients noted above. We may only say, with a view to clear a serious misconception of law in the mind of the police as well as the courts below, that if it is a case of the complainant that offence of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 of IPC, punishable under Section 406 of IPC, is committed by the accused, then in the same breath it cannot be said that the accused has also committed the offence of cheating as defined and explained in Section 415 of the IPC, punishable under Section 420 of the IPC.Page 10 of 18 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 10 21:06:28 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23472/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/09/2024 undefined
28. Every act of breach of trust may not result in a penal offence of criminal breach of trust unless there is evidence of manipulating act of fraudulent misappropriation. An act of breach of trust involves a civil wrong in respect of which the person may seek his remedy for damages in civil courts but, any breach of trust with a mens rea, gives rise to a criminal prosecution as well. It has been held in Hari Prasad Chamaria v. Bishun Kumar Surekha & Ors., reported in (1973) 2 SCC 823 as under:
"4. We have heard Mr. Maheshwari on behalf of the appellant and are of the opinion that no case has been made out against the respondents under Section 420 Penal Code, 1860. For the purpose of the present appeal, we would assume that the various allegations of fact which have been made in the complaint by the appellant are correct. Even after making that allowance, we find that the complaint does not disclose the commission of any offence on the part of the respondents under Section 420 Penal Code, 1860. There is nothing in the complaint to show that the respondents had dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time the appellant parted with Rs. 35.000/- There is also nothing to indicate that the respondents induced the appellant to pay them Rs. 35,000/- by deceiving him. It is further not the case of the appellant that a representation was made, the respondents knew the same to be false. The fact that the respondents subsequently did not abide by their commitment that they would show the appellant to be the proprietor of Drang Transport Corporation and would also render accounts to him in the month of December might create civil liability on the respondents for the offence of cheating."
29. To put it in other words, the case of cheating and dishonest intention starts with the very inception of the transaction. But in the case of criminal breach of trust, a person who Page 11 of 18 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 10 21:06:28 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23472/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/09/2024 undefined comes into possession of the movable property and receives it legally, but illegally retains it or converts it to his own use against the terms of the contract, then the question is, in a case like this, whether the retention is with dishonest intention or not, whether the retention involves criminal breach of trust or only a civil liability would depend upon the facts of each case.
30. The distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating is a fine one. In case of cheating, the intention of the accused at the time of inducement should be looked into which may be judged by a subsequent conduct, but for this, the subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right from the beginning of the transaction i.e. the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore, it is this intention, which is the gist of the offence. Whereas, for the criminal breach of trust, the property must have been entrusted to the accused or he must have dominion over it. The property in respect of which the offence of breach of trust has been committed must be either the property of some person other than the accused or the beneficial interest in or ownership' of it must be of some other person. The accused must hold that property on trust of such other person. Although the offence, i.e. the offence of breach of trust and cheating involve dishonest intention, yet they are mutually exclusive and different in basic concept. There is a distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating. For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making a false or misleading representation i.e., since inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the property, and he Page 12 of 18 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 10 21:06:28 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23472/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/09/2024 undefined dishonestly misappropriated the same. Whereas, in case of cheating, the offender fraudulently or dishonestly induces a person by deceiving him to deliver any property. In such a situation, both the offences cannot co-exist simultaneously.
31. At the most, the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate could have issued process for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC i.e. cheating but in any circumstances no case of criminal breach of trust is made out. The reason being that indisputably there is no entrustment of any property in the case at hand. It is not even the case of the complainant that any property was lawfully entrusted to the appellants and that the same has been dishonestly misappropriated. The case of the complainant is plain and simple. He says that the price of the goods sold by him has not been paid. Once there is a sale, Section 406 of the IPC goes out of picture. According to the complainant, the invoices raised by him were not cleared. No case worth the name of cheating is also made out.
32. Even if the Magistrate would have issued process for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC, i.e., cheating the same would have been liable to be quashed and set aside, as none of the ingredients to constitute the offence of cheating are disclosed from the materials on record.
33. It has been held in State of Gujarat v. Jaswantlal Nathalal reported in (1968) 2 SCR 408, "The term "entrusted" found in Section 405 IPC governs not only the words "with the property"
immediately following it but also the words "or with any dominion over the property" occurring thereafter--see Velji Raghvaji Patel v. State of Maharashtra [(1965) 2 SCR 429]. Before there can be any entrustment there must be a trust meaning thereby an obligation annexed to the ownership of property and a confidence reposed in and accepted by the owner or declared and accepted by him for the benefit of another or of another and the Page 13 of 18 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 10 21:06:28 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23472/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/09/2024 undefined owner. But that does not mean that such an entrustment need conform to all the technicalities of the law of trust -- see Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney v. State of Bombay [1956 SCR 483]. The expression "entrustment" carries with it the implication that the person handing over any property or on whose behalf that property is handed over to another, continues to be its owner. Further the person handing over the property must have confidence in the person taking the property so as to create a fiduciary relationship between them. A mere transaction of sale cannot amount to an "entrustment"".
34. Similarly, in Central Bureau of Investigation, SPE, SIU(X), New Delhi v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., Calcutta reported in (1996) 5 SCC 591 this Court held that the expression "entrusted with property" used in Section 405 of the IPC connotes that the property in respect of which criminal breach of trust can be committed must necessarily be the property of some person other than the accused or that the beneficial interest in or ownership thereof must be in the other person and the offender must hold such property in trust for such other person or for his benefit. The relevant observations read as under: -
"27. In the instant case, a serious dispute has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties as to whether on the face of the allegations, an offence of criminal breach of trust is constituted or not. In our view, the expression "entrusted with property"
or "with any dominion over property" has been used in a wide sense in Section 405 IPC. Such expression includes all cases in which goods are entrusted, that is, voluntarily handed over for a specific purpose and dishonestly disposed of in violation of law or in violation of contract. The expression 'entrusted' appearing in Section 405 IPC is not necessarily a term of Page 14 of 18 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 10 21:06:28 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23472/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/09/2024 undefined law. It has wide and different implications in different contexts. It is, however, necessary that the ownership or beneficial interest in the ownership of the property entrusted in respect of which offence is alleged to have been committed must be in some person other than the accused and the latter must hold it on account of some person or in some way for his benefit. The expression 'trust' in Section 405 IPC is a comprehensive expression and has been used to denote various kinds of relationships like the relationship of trustee and beneficiary, bailor and bailee, master and servant, pledger and pledgee. When some goods are hypothecated by a person to another person, the ownership of the goods still remains with the person who has hypothecated such goods. The property in respect of which criminal breach of trust can be committed must necessarily be the property of some person other than the accused or the beneficial interest in or ownership of it must be in the other person and the offender must hold such property in trust for such other person or for his benefit. In a case of pledge, the pledged article belongs to some other person but the same is kept in trust by the pledgee. [...]" (Emphasis supplied)
35. The aforesaid exposition of law makes it clear that there should be some entrustment of property to the accused wherein the ownership is not transferred to the accused. In case of sale of movable property, although the payment may be deferred yet the property in the goods passes on delivery as per Sections 20 and 24 respectively of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
"20. Specific goods in a deliverable state. -- Where there is an unconditional contract for the sale of specific goods in a deliverable state, the property in the goods passes to the buyer when the contract is made and it is immaterial whether the time of payment of the Page 15 of 18 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 10 21:06:28 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23472/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/09/2024 undefined price or the time of delivery of goods, or both, is postponed.
xxx xxx xxx
24. Goods sent on approval or "on sale or return". -- When goods are delivered to the buyer on approval or "on sale or return" or other similar terms, the property therein passes to the buyer--
(a) when he signifies his approval or acceptance to the seller or does any other act adopting the transaction;
(b) if he does not signify his approval or acceptance to the seller but retains the goods without giving notice of rejection, then, if a time has been fixed for the return of the goods on the expiration of such time, and, if no time has been fixed, on the expiration of a reasonable time."
36. From the aforesaid, there is no manner of any doubt whatsoever that in case of sale of goods, the property passes to the purchaser from the seller when the goods are delivered. Once the property in the goods passes to the purchaser, it cannot be said that the purchaser was entrusted with the property of the seller. Without entrustment of property, there cannot be any criminal breach of trust. Thus, prosecution of cases on charge of criminal breach of trust, for failure to pay the consideration amount in case of sale of goods is flawed to the core. There can be civil remedy for the non-payment of the consideration amount, but no criminal case will be maintainable for it. [See : Lalit Chaturvedi and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 171 & Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd. (MESCO Steel Ltd.) and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another :2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 301]
37. The case at hand falls in category No. 1 as laid in Smt. Nagawwa (supra) referred to in para 7 of this judgment.
Page 16 of 18 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 10 21:06:28 IST 2024NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23472/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/09/2024 undefined
38. If it is the case of the complainant that a particular amount is due and payable to him then he should have filed a civil suit for recovery of the amount against the appellants herein. But he could not have gone to the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate by filing a complaint of cheating and criminal breach of trust.
39. It appears that till this date, the complainant has not filed any civil suit for recovery of the amount which according to him is due and payable to him by the appellants. He seems to have prima facie lost the period of limitation for filing such a civil suit.
40. In such circumstances referred to above, the continuation of the criminal proceeding would be nothing but abuse of the process of law.
10. Thus, if the facts of the present case are to be examined in the context of the aforesaid observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of the opinion that the chances of an ultimate conviction of the applicant on the basis of the facts of the present case are bleak and therefore continuation of criminal prosecution against the applicant is nothing but sheer misuse of process of the Court. Thus, considering the ratio enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions, I am of the opinion that the FIR in question deserves to be quashed qua the applicant.
11. In the result, the application succeeds and is hereby allowed. Accordingly, the FIR being C.R.No.I- 142 of 2019 registered with Keshod Police Station, District Junagadh for the offence punishable under Page 17 of 18 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 10 21:06:28 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23472/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/09/2024 undefined Sections 406, 420, 409 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby quashed qua the applicant.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) LAVKUMAR J JANI Page 18 of 18 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 10 21:06:28 IST 2024