1. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the applicant/accused No.3 with a prayer to quash and set aside the FIR i.e. C.R. No.I-16 of 2011 registered at Shil Police Station, District: Junagadh for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that impugned complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law. and.
2. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is falsely implicated and further it arise out of commercial transaction of ordinary in nature and the applicant had no contact with the complainant who purchased two different kinds of grains from accused Nos. 1 and 2 in view of their long lasting business relationship. The applicant has no criminal antecedent and is paying sales tax and other dues of the Government and authorities in accordance with law.
2.1.
In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the applicant relied on following decisions (1) Veer Prakash Sharma v. Anil Kumar Agarwal and Anr. [2007 (3) GLH 182], (2) Dharamchand S/o Gopi Ram v. State of Gujarat [1980 (2) GLR 341], (3) M/s. HICEL Pharma Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2000 CRI.L.J. 2566] (4) Central Bureau of Investigation, SPE, SIU (X), New Delhi v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. Culcutta [1996 (3) Crimes 60 (SC) and (5) V.P. Shrivastava v. Indian Explosives Limited &Anrs. [(2010) 10 SCC 361] and submitted that Section 482 of the Code and power laid down therein along with Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised by the Court in case if the complainant applies short cut to resolve the dispute of civil nature by filing false complaint and invoking Sections 406 and 420 of IPC when there is no endorsement of the property.
3. Upon perusal of the application and a query raised by this Court, learned advocate for the applicant failed to place on record or point out anything from the record of the case about placement of an order for purchase of goods namely, two grains 'Moong' and 'Chhana' of 50 kilograms of quantity each and further the payment was also made by the applicant to accused Nos. 1 and 2 in cash. The above dealing of the applicant is seen in the context of the allegations levelled in the complaint against two accused who had diverted the truck fully loaded with the above grains to another destination and such goods were found from the place of the applicant and in the above context Sections 406 and 420 along with 114 of IPC is found to have been attracted and at this stage decision relied on by learned advocate for the applicant does not support the case of the applicant and accordingly, in a case of dishonest interest on the part of the applicant to purchase the goods not belonging to him nor he entered into the transaction legally, for which, investigation is necessary.
4. No case is made out. The application is summarily rejected. Notice discharged.
[ANANT S. DAVE, J.] //smita// Top