Gujarat High Court
Rajeshri vs State on 29 March, 2012
Author: Anant S. Dave
Bench: Anant S. Dave
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/2262/2012 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 2262 of 2012
======================================
RAJESHRI
ASHISH SHAH - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)
======================================
Appearance :
MR
MRUGESH JANI for Applicant
Mr.
J.K. Shah, APP, for respondent : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) : 2 - 4.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 29/03/2012
ORAL
ORDER
This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by the applicant, original accused No.3, with a prayer to quash and set aside the proceedings arising out of Criminal Case Nos. 10 of 2012 to 12 of 2012 pending in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Negotiable Instruments Act, Court No.30, Ahmedabad, on the ground that the cheques in question which are subject matter of the complaint, were, admittedly, issued on different dates, namely, 19.4.2011, 29.4.2011, 10.5.2011, 21.5.2011 and 10.6.2011, while, by executing a release deed, the applicant herein retired on 21.2.2011 and the said release deed was signed on 20.2.2011 and all the liabilities were taken up by other partners and, therefore, the applicant is not liable to pay the amount as claimed, after execution of the release deed.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and on perusal of the record, this Court has noticed that the legal dues, for which the payment remained outstanding and which were admittedly prior to the release deed, were during the tenure of the applicant as a partner and the execution of release deed subsequent to that, may be cheques were issued by some of the partners or in the name of the partnership, and, therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant on the basis of the release deed dated 20.2.2011 is in the realm of defence, which can be adjudicated by the trial court at the trial and, at this stage, this Court would not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry into the same. Hence, no case is made out to exercise power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the impugned complaint and this application, being misconceived, is rejected summarily.
(ANANT S. DAVE, J.) (swamy) Top