1. The applicant, who have been named as accused in F.I.R. No.I-224/12 dated 24/12/2012 registered at Athavalines Police Station, Surat for the offences punishable under Sections-406, 420, 120 (B) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, has approached this Court invoking Section-482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the said F.I.R.
2. Learned advocate for the applicant has contended that the incident is said to have occurred at Mumbai and yet in order to harass the applicants, it is projected as if it is occurred at Surat. The reading of the entire F.I.R. would indicate that it was a purely business transaction and the same could not have been therefore given a colour of an offence. Learned advocate for the applicant further contended that the complaint is not contained of any explanation for filing it belatedly as it is filed after 1½ years.
3. This Court is of the considered view that this application is required to be rejected for the following reasons.
(a) The Court is called-upon to examine the complaint in exercise of power conferred upon this Court under Section-482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the allegations contained in the complaint on its plain reading, clearly indicate that the complainant has parted with the diamonds at Surat as the day, place and office address mentioned in the complaint. The allegations thereafter, indicate that the complainant was hoping for receiving the positive reply, but that in itself would not in any manner change the colour of the allegations. The Court is therefore, of the view that the allegations made in the complaint on the face of it when reveals all ingredients constituted in the offence is proved then, the quashment is not permissible.
4. Hence, the application being bereft of merits, deserves rejection and accordingly the same is rejected.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) Rathod...
Page 2 of 2