1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Bagga for the applicant and learned APP Mr. K. P. Raval for the respondent no.1-State. None appears for respondent no.2 though served.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Bagga for the applicant submitted that the applicant is original accused no.3 in the FIR filed by respondent no.2 and FIR came to be filed for the offences punishable under Section-403, 420 and 506(1) read with Section-114 of the Indian Penal Code against three accused persons including the applicant. Learned advocate Mr. Bagga read over the copy of the FIR annexed at Annexure-A and submitted that so far as the applicant original accused no.3 is concerned, no role is attributed to him in the FIR except that the original accused nos.1 and 2 who received some money from the complainant deposited the said money in the account of the applicant original accused no.3. Learned advocate Mr.Bagga draw my attention to the copies of passport etc annexed with this application and submitted that the applicant original accused no.3 was pursuing his study in U.K. and from 16/09/2005 to 06/04/2006 he was in U.K. and was not available in India when according to the FIR, Rs.80,000/- came to be deposited in his account on 18/10/2005, Rs.15,000/- came to be deposited in his account on 20/10/2005 and Rs.25,000/- came to be deposited in his account on 31/12/2005. It is therefore, submitted by learned advocate Mr.Bagga that neither, as per FIR, the applicant original accused no.3 was present at the time when any talk took place regarding supply of antic articles by original accused nos.1 and 2 to the complainant nor the complainant as per his FIR demanded back any money from the applicant original accused no.3. It is therefore, submitted that even no prima facie case is made out against the applicant and therefore, qua the applicant the FIR deserves to be quashed.
3. Heard learned APP Mr. Raval for the respondent no.1-State.
4. Pursuant to the order dated 27/07/2011 passed in this matter, notice for final disposal was ordered to be issued. I have taken into consideration the copy of FIR annexed at Annexure-A. The perusal of the FIR would suggests that original accused nos.1 and 2 contacted respondent no.2 original complainant and original accused nos.1 and 2 asked the complainant to purchase some antic article from them. This happened in the year 2005. It is also the averment in the FIR that original accused nos.1 and 2 represented that antic articles are of pure gold. It is further stated in the FIR that the price of Rs.1,20,000/- was settled and as per FIR the amount of Rs.80,000/- which came to be paid by the complainant to the original accused nos.1 and 2 came to be deposited in the account of the original accused no.3 on 18/10/2005, sum or Rs.15,000/- came to be deposited in his account on 20/10/2005 and the amount of Rs.25,000/- was deposited in his account on 31/12/2005. After some time respondent no.2 original complainant doubted the genuineness of the articles and when the test of its genuineness was undertaken, the articles turned out to be a fake antic articles. It is further stated in the FIR that in the month of May, 2009 when the respondent no.2 original complainant demanded back his money, the original accused nos.1 and 2 refused to return back the money to the complainant. Hence, the FIR was filed.
5. In the above view of the matter, so far as the applicant original accused no.3 is concerned, nothing transpires that he played any active role either in making any false representation to the complainant or demanded and received any money from complainant. As submitted by learned advocate Mr.Bagga for the applicant, as per the copies of the documents like passport etc. annexed at Annexure-B collectively, it is submitted that from 16/09/2005 to 06/04/2006 the applicant original accused no.3 was pursuing his study in U.K. and he was not available in India when on 18/10/2005, 20/10/2005 and 31/12/2005 the amount allegedly deposited in his bank account in India. Even in the FIR it is clearly stated that the amount came to be deposited in the account of applicant original accused no.3 by and at the instance of original accused nos.1.
6. In the above view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that no offence appears to have been prima facie made out against the applicant original accused no.3. The application is, therefore, deserved to be allowed.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the application is allowed and the FIR being CR No.-I-406 of 2009 registered at Vejalpur Police Station, Ahmedabad and subsequent proceedings initiated pursuant to the said FIR qua the applicant original accused no.3 only, are ordered to be quashed. The application stands disposed of accordingly.
(J.C.UPADHYAYA, J.) (ila) Top