Gujarat High Court
Aniruddhsinh Pratapsinh Gohil vs State Of Gujarat on 9 June, 2023
Bench: M. R. Mengdey
R/CR.MA/3521/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 3521 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
ANIRUDDHSINH PRATAPSINH GOHIL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.KARNA H DHOMSE(6684) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR YOGESH G DEV(5700) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. HARDIK SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 09/06/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present Application has been filed by the Applicant (Original
Accused No.6) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for
quashing of First Information Report being I-C.R. No. 384 of 2013 registered
R/CR.MA/3521/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2023
with 'A' Division Police Station, Rajkot.
2. Learned Advocate Mr. Karna H. Dhomse appearing for the Applicant
submits that the present Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present
offence. The Applicant has never obtained any loan from Respondent No.2 -
Gruh Finance Limited (Original Complainant) [hereinafter referred to as
"Respondent - Gruh Finance"]. It was actually the father of the Applicant and
the Accused No.1 in the FIR who had obtained the loan from the Respondent
No.2 - Gruh Finance though the property in question was pending in the name
of the present Applicant, by suppressing the said fact. He further submitted
that though the Applicant had not obtained any loan from the Respondent -
Gruh Finance, he has paid a sum of Rs.63,29,962/- to the Respondent - Gruh
Finance and the receipt of the said amount has been duly acknowledged by the
Respondent - Gruh Finance vide letter dated 25.4.2019. He also submitted that
the present Applicant has also lodged a private complaint against his own
father who also is Accused No.1 in the present case. He therefore submitted
that considering the fact that the Applicant had not obtained any loan from the
Respondent - Gruh Finance and despite the same he has paid the aforesaid
amount to the Respondent - Gruh Finance and therefore no offence as alleged
in the FIR has been made out against the Applicant. He therefore submitted to
allow the present Application.
3. Learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni has opposed the present Application inter
alia contending that the loan was obtained from the Respondent - Gruh Finance
under the false pretext by the present Applicant and Accused No.1 in
connivance with each other and thus the Respondent - Gruh Finance has been
duped for the large amount. It was therefore submitted to dismiss the present
Application.
4. Learned Advocate Mr. Yogesh G. Dave appearing on behalf of
R/CR.MA/3521/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2023
Respondent No.2 - Gruh Finance has stated at the bar that in view of letter
dated 25.4.2019, addressed by Respondent No.2 to the present Applicant,
which is also on record at Page No. 92, necessary orders may be passed.
5. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the
record.
6. As per the case of the Respondent - Gruh Finance, though the Accused
No.4 had executed a Gift Deed in favour of the present Applicant who also
happens to be the son of Accused No.4, concealing the said fact the loan has
been obtained from various Financial Institutions by Accused No.4 and, the
present Applicant being the son of Accused No.4, had connived at the conduct
of Accused No.4 and thus the financial assistance was obtained from the
various financial institutions as if Accused No.4 was the real son of the
property in question.
7. Upon perusal of the FIR and other relevant documents it does not appear
that it was the present Applicant who had obtained any financial assistance
from Respondent No.2 - Gruh Finance on any false pretext or otherwise nor is
there anything on record to indicate that the Applicant had ever forged or
fabricated any document with a view to obtain loan from Respondent No.2 -
Gruh Finance.
8. The record also indicates that the Applicant has already repaid a sum of
Rs.63,29,962/- to the Respondent - Gruh Finance for clearance of the loan
amount obtained by Accused No.4 i.e. his father. The Respondent - Gruh
Finance has also acknowledged the receipt of the said money from the present
Applicant vide its letter dated 25.4.2019. The said letter is also produced on
record by the present Applicant at Page No.92.
R/CR.MA/3521/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2023
9. It also appears that the present Applicant has also lodged a private
complaint against his father i.e. Accused No.4 and other Accused Persons in
this regard.
10. Considering the same, upon perusal of the FIR as well as the relevant
records, no offence is made out against the present Applicant and, in view of
the fact that the Applicant has already repaid the loan amount to the
Respondent - Gruh Finance, there is no point in keeping the present
proceedings pending against the present Applicant which would be nothing but
an abuse of process of law so far as the Applicant is concerned.
11. Under the circumstances ,the present Application is allowed. The FIR
being I-C.R. No. 384 of 2013 registered with 'A' Division Police Station,
Rajkot for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 471 and 120(B) of the
Indian Pebnal Code, and all other consequential proceedings arising there from
are hereby quashed and set aside so far as it relates to the present Applicant.
Rule is made absolute.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
J.N.W
