1. By way of this petition under Section-482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners, the accused in Court Inquiry No.53 of 2005, filed before J.M.F.C., Mehmdabad, for the offences punishable under Sections-406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, by making following prayers:
“6.
A. admit and allow this application.
B. quash and set aside Criminal Case No.614 of 2006 taken on record on 13.04.2006 in pursuance to the Court Inquiry No.53 of 2005 so also order dated 17.10.2005 and 13.04.2006 passed by the learned JMFC, Mehmdabad under sections 202 and 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
C. pending admission hearing and final disposal of the present application, further proceedings of Criminal Case No.614 of 2006 pending with the learned JMFC,Mehmdabad be kindly be stayed.
D. grant such other and further relief(s) as may be deemed fit, just and proper in the interest of justice.”
2. Heard, learned Advocate, Mr. Abhichandani, for the petitioner and learned APP, Mr. Nanavati, for respondent No.1 and learned Advocate, Mr. Sharma, for respondent No.2, the original complainant.
3. Learned Advocate, Mr. Abhichandani, submitted that a civil transaction and dispute arising there from is sought to be given colour of a criminal act by the complainant. To support his say, he has taken this Court through the past litigation in the form of S.C.A. No.6063 of 1988 and order passed therein, dated 16.10.1988, to show that the dispute was settled between the parties. He also drew attention of this Court towards the cause title of S.C.A. No.6063of 1988 to highlight the falsity of the averments in the complaint about certain acts having been committed by the Power-of-Attorney holder of the present petitioner, who was petitioner No.4 in the said petition(Annexure-D).
4. Learned APP, Mr. Nanavati, has strongly opposed this petition.
5. Learned Advocate, Mr. Sharma, for respondent No.2 has also opposed the petition. According to him, the petitioners, herein, have not only defrauded the complainant, but, have also defrauded the Court. He submitted that a Power-of-Attorney holder could not have acted the way, the dispute was settled in 1988. therefore, the petition be dismissed.
6. Having heard learned Counsel for all the parties, this Court finds three glaring features in this case, which are as under:
(1) The complainant in his complaint has come out with a case of his Power-of- Attorney holder has not filed S.C.A. No.6063 of 1988 and has not arrived at some settlement in that capacity. However, if the cause title is seen, it is clear that the respondent No.2 appeared before the Court as petitioner No.4 in that petition, as an individual and not through Power-of-Attorney. The attempt on the part of respondent No.2, the complainant is, therefore, to cover- up the falsity or weakness of his case.
(2) The second feature that emerges is that there were transactions of civil nature, in respect of which there were some disputes, which were settled way- back in 1988, as recorded by this Court in its order and after that was done in 1988, the complaint is filed in 2005.
(3) The next feature that attracts the attention of this Court is that upon the complaint being filed before the learned J.M.F.C., the learned J.M.F.C. Ordered an inquiry through police and the police submitted its report on 11th December, 2005 along with the material collected by it. The report dated 11th December, 2005, does not specify any involvement and any offence having been committed by the present petitioners. On the contrary, this attempt would show that there were transactions mainly of civil nature.
7. All the above factors are enough to pursue this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Section-482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and grant the reliefs sought by the petitioners.
8. In the result, this petition is ALLOWED in terms of PARA-6(B). Rule is made absolute.
(A.L. DAVE,J.) Umesh/