Gujarat High Court
V S Shrinivasan vs State Of Gujarat & on 5 October, 2015
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi
R/SCR.A/1771/2011 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1771 of 2011
==========================================================
V S SHRINIVASAN....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DEVANG J JOSHI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR LALIT M PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
None for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HARDIK SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date : 05/10/2015
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned counsel Mr. Soni was previously appearing for respondent No.2, the original complainant. Now that he is posted as an APP, he is allowed to retire on behalf of opponent No.2.
2. The petitioner, original accused No.3 has filed this quashing petition praying for quashing Criminal Case No. 82 of 2000 filed by respondent No.2 before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gandhidham. Respondent No.2 is a bank. In such complaint, he had alleged that, for and on behalf of Company-20th Century Finance Corporation Limited, he had issued notices for cheque bouncing under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Company had promised to pay Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Tue Oct 06 02:06:41 IST 2015 R/SCR.A/1771/2011 ORDER his legal charges which came to Rs. 5400/- for such work. According to the complainant, after having got such work done, the accused, who are the office bearers of the company, refused to make payment. According to the complainant, therefore, this was a clear case of cheating.
3. It appears that the stand of the company was that the bank had never raised any such bill or demand. On the contrary, the complainant had borrowed money from the Finance Company for the purpose of purchasing the Tata Sumo car. For such purpose, he had issued advance cheques. Such cheques had bounced, upon which, the car was re-possessed. Stung by such action of the company, the complaint was lodged.
4. Be that as it may, the allegations contained in the complaint itself do not disclose any evidence. Plain and simple, it is a civil dispute where the complainant had carried out such some legal work for and on behalf of the company, for which, the officers of the company had agreed payment, are the issues which are purely of civil nature. If the legal charges remained unpaid, it is always open for the bank to file a suit for recovery. Allowing the complainant to pursue such complaint would result in misuse of criminal machinery.
5. In the result, Criminal Case No. 82 of 2000 is quashed. Petition is allowed and disposed of. Rule is made absolute.
Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Tue Oct 06 02:06:41 IST 2015 R/SCR.A/1771/2011 ORDER (AKIL KURESHI, J.) Jyoti Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Tue Oct 06 02:06:41 IST 2015