Milind Mukund Joshi vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 4025 Guj

    R/CR.MA/783/2014                             JUDGMENT DATED: 18/05/2023




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 783 of 2014


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA                                 SD/-

==========================================================

1    Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed                 YES
     to see the judgment ?

2    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                          YES

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 ?

==========================================================
                          MILIND MUKUND JOSHI
                                  Versus
                       STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.   MIHIR    JOSHI,   SENIOR   COUNSEL    FOR   M/S
WADIAGHANDY AND CO. (5679) FOR THE APPLICANT(S) NO. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) FOR THE RESPONDENT(S) NO. 2
MR. BHADRISH S RAJU(6676) FOR THE RESPONDENT(S) NO. 3
MR L B DABHI, APP FOR THE RESPONDENT(S) NO. 1
==========================================================
    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

                             Date : 18/05/2023

                             ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By this application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant-original accused Mr. Milind Joshi, resident of Mumbai (Maharashtra), seeks

R/CR.MA/783/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/05/2023

quashment of First Informant Report (FIR) bearing C.R.No.II-3275/2013 dated 20.12.2013 registered with Satellite Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 506(2), 507 and 114 of IPC read with Section 135 (1) of the Gujarat Police Act.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to file present application are as follows:-

2.1 A Company IDFC Project Equity Company Ltd. (now referred to as 'IDFC') is involved with investment in companies engaged in the infrastructure sector. The applicant accused was serving with IDFC and authorized signatory of the India Infrastructure Firm (IIF), which is domestic venture capital firm registered with SEBI. A company Hanjar Biotech Pvt. Ltd. and Hanjar Biotech Energies Pvt. Ltd., managed and controlled by the persons, known as Group of Furniturewala. The third respondent - original informant is associated with both the companies and authorized representative of it. In 2009, IDFC through IIF, invested Rs.250 crore in Hanjar Energies Ltd. by executing share subscription agreement and shareholder agreement. In 2013, dispute arose between the parties and accordingly, the third respondent and others associated with the Hanjar Pvt. Ltd. decided to buyback (purchase) the shares sold to IIF. Parties had entered into agreement

R/CR.MA/783/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/05/2023

and agreed to pay Rs.154.50 crore towards consideration of purchase of shares. After making some amount by purchaser company, again dispute arose for audit reports, mismanaging the affairs of the company and oppressing the interest of the minority of the company i.e. IIF and others. The applicant accused being a signatory authority of IIF filed Company Petition for various reliefs.

2.2 On 05.12.2013, the third respondent Nadeem Furniturewala came at Ahmedabad and he stayed at Hotel Mariott, Satellite area, Ahmedabad. According to case of the informant, the applicant used to threaten the informant telephonically and asked to pay the remaining amount of purchased shares and further threatened that if amount is not paid in time limit, he will resign from the Directorship of the company and also tarnish the image of the company. It is further alleged by the third respondent that he along with others fed-up with the conduct of the applicant accused and accordingly, they had paid three installments of due amount. It is further alleged that despite of the amount paid, threat was given by the applicant accused. It is further alleged by the informant - third respondent that, on 05.12.2013, when he along with his PRO were on walk nearby Mariott Hotel, four unknown persons holding sticks came and asked the third respondent to talk with the

R/CR.MA/783/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/05/2023

applicant accused on his mobile. The third respondent made a call to the applicant accused and during conversation, he was threatened over the phone that, "if any action is taken against him, he will cause damage to the reputation and personally harm to the third respondent". It is further alleged by the informant that the unknown persons further said that he is under their surveillance and therefore, directed him to go straight to the hotel. It is further alleged that, due to such incident, he was under shock and trauma and on the next date i.e. 06.12.2013, he filed a written complaint to the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad and accordingly, the FIR came to be registered on 20.12.2013 for the offence under Sections 506 (2), 507 and 114 of IPC.

3. In the aforesaid facts, the applicant - original accused has preferred this application for quashing of the FIR, mainly on the ground that the allegations made are inherently improbable and absurd and same is tantamount to an abuse of process of law and he is actuated with ulterior motive.

4. At the admission stage of the application, the coordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 16.01.2014, passed the following order:-

"Leave to correct the prayer clause(B) and (C) is granted. Rule. Learned APP waives service for the State.

Considering the preexistence civil dispute which is sought to

R/CR.MA/783/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/05/2023

be resolved through the Company Law Board by filing appropriation application, the averments made in the complaint prima facie do not inspire confidence of this Court. Hence, ad interim relief in terms of Paragraph10(C) qua the applicant is granted. Direct Service for rest of the respondents is permitted".

5. After service of notices on the third respondent, he has filed an Affidavit in Reply, which is placed on record at page 114 of the application and placed on record the undisputed documentary evidence like copy of the Company Appeal (5/2014) filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and interim order passed therein. The applicant Mr. Milind Joshi has denied the facts of Affidavit in Reply by filing Affidavit in Rejoinder which is at page 242 of the application.

6. This Court has heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mihir Joshi appearing for and on behalf of Wadia Ghandy & Co., Mr. Bhadrish Raju and Mr. L.B.Dabhi for the respective parties.

7. Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Counsel raised the following contentions:-

(i) That, the allegations levelled in the FIR are inherently improbable and filing of the FIR is a counterblast to the civil proceedings initiated by IIF against the third respondent and others; that it is not in dispute that, as per the purchase agreement, the huge amount is due to IIF and the third respondent and his company failed to perform their part, despite extension of time and on the

R/CR.MA/783/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/05/2023

issue with regard to mismanagement of the company and oppressing the interest of IIF and others, the applicant being signatory of IIF filed a company petition. In such circumstances, the act of criminal intimidation and further allegations thereof are patently absurd and improbable and there is no reasonable and prudent basis on which sufficient ground for proceeding against the applicant accused exists.

(ii) That, before lodging of the FIR, the applicant accused and third respondent met in AGM of the company and written objections with regard to audit report was also submitted by the applicant and same was replied by the third respondent. Thus, either in AGM meeting or while entering into correspondence, the third respondent could have mentioned the alleged act of criminal intimidation took place at Ahmedabad hotel, which is evident that the entire incident was fabricated to exert pressure on the applicant and entire story of criminal intimidation was woven by the third respondent to deter, IIF (creditor) and its employee applicant to initiate any action in relation to the defaults committed by them.

(iii) That, the question does not arise to threaten the third respondent as legally IIF is entitled to initiate the proceedings to recover the amount and the third respondent having no occasion or cause to initiate the proceedings against the applicant or IIF. Thus, the

R/CR.MA/783/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/05/2023

factum of allegations made in the FIR are inherently improbable, absurd and no prudent man could accept the same.

(iv) That, the allegations in the FIR are completely vague and bereft of the essential ingredients constituting the offence under Section 506(2) and 507 of IPC. Even the allegations of threat as alleged are accepted in its entirety, the offence alleged is not made out against the applicant. Section 506(2) of IPC is cognizable and non- bailable offence in Gujarat and therefore, with an ulterior motive, the third respondent has invoked the section to harass the applicant. The registering authority of the FIR should have inquired into the veracity of the allegations to ascertain the whether prima facie offence as alleged is made out or not as from the FIR, it demonstrates that the commercial dispute being given a cloak of criminal offence. The applicant herein being a representative of the company is legally entitled to demand the due amount as referred and merely initiation of the proceedings to protect the legal right is not any offence and therefore, no complaint in this regard is maintainable in law against the applicant.

8. In support of the aforesaid contentions, reliance has been placed by learned Senior Counsel on the decision of Supreme Court rendered in case of Ramesh Rajgopal vs. Devi Polymers Pvt. Ltd. [Cri. Appeal 133/2016], to

R/CR.MA/783/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/05/2023

contend that when the allegations levelled in the FIR are inherently improbable and proceedings have been initiated as a part of on-going dispute, the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., shall have to be exercised by the High Court to prevent abuse of process of law and Court.

9. In view of the contentions raised above and the ratio laid down in the Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal (Supra), learned Senior Counsel submitted that, continuation of criminal proceedings in the present case will damage the reputation of the applicant accused in the society as well as in the business and therefore, the High Court is invested with tremendous powers thereunder to pass appropriate order to prevent the misuse of process of Court and it is a fit case to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings.

10. Mr. Bhadrish Raju and state counsel Mr. L.B.Dabhi countering to the aforesaid contentions submitted as under:-

(i) That, there is specific allegation made against the applicant that he had threatened the third respondent at the place mentioned in the FIR and the entire incident narrated by the third respondent, which clearly discloses commission of offences punishable under Sections 506 (2) and 507 read with Section 114 of IPC. The applicant herein immediately rushed to the High Court and due to interim order, investigation is still not proceeded. The

R/CR.MA/783/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/05/2023

investigation has to go on in the offence and there are several aspects to be investigated into by IO during the court of investigation. Just because of filing of Company Petition or dispute raised in the petition, the proceedings in the present case cannot be quashed and investigation cannot inter-dictate at the initial stage.

(ii) That, this is not a stage when minute and meticulous exercise with regard to appreciation of evidence may be done and the probability and truthfulness of allegations can only be tested in a trial and the High court is not justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made therein.

(iii) That, all the submissions made by the applicant, relate to the disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

(iv) That, the applicant has malafidely tried to mix up the litigation filed under the Companies Act, as the facts of Company Petition having no relevance on the allegations made in the FIR.

(v) That, the allegations of malafide against the third respondent are of no consequences and cannot by itself be the basis for quashing of FIR as at this stage, the Court may not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry

R/CR.MA/783/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/05/2023

as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR.

(vi) That, there may not be any personal dispute of the applicant with the third respondent and others, but it is a matter of personal gain, which was at a stake and he is the beneficiary of the due amount. Thus the contention that he is merely an employee of the company and having no personal interest, having no any substance and cannot be accepted.

(vii) That, the applicant and Kothari Group having common interest in Hanjar Energies Pvt. Ltd. and Kothari Group having nexus with the underworld and the name of Sunil Kothari disclosed in one FIR allegedly lodged with Surat Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 307 etc. of IPC. and to substantiate this contention, the affidavit of the investigating officer contesting the bail application is relevant to establish the association of the applicant with Kothari Group and at the behest of Kothari Group, the applicant herein initiated the proceedings under the Companies Act to take over the company. Thus, in this context, it is submitted that inherent power of this Court may not be exercised at this stage and investigation should not be thwarted as the offences committed by the applicant in conspiracy with the other assailants require thorough investigation.

R/CR.MA/783/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/05/2023

11. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel Mr. Bhadrish Raju and State Counsel Mr. L.B.Dabhi, appearing for the respondents, relying on the case of M/ s. Niharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra [2021 SC Cases Online 315], to content that the Court may not, except in extraordinary circumstances, exercise its jurisdiction, as the statutory power has to be exercised sparingly and it should not be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution when the entire facts are incomplete. Thus, therefore, they submitted that where the offence as alleged is disclosed, the court normally will not interfere with the investigation and investigation into the offence must necessarily follow in the interest of justice and this is not a exceptional case to exercise the powers to quash the proceedings.

12. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the third respondent and State submitted that the application is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

13. The scope and power of the High Court to quash the FIR and/or complaint is well settled. The power under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse of Court and to secure the ends of justice.

14. A thee judge Bench of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. L. Munniswami [1977 (2) SCC 699], held that the High Court is entitled to quash a criminal

R/CR.MA/783/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/05/2023

proceedings if it comes to a conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. In para 7 of the judgment, the Apex Court observed as under:-

"7. In the, exercise of this. whole some power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the; ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to. achieve a salu- tary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the, ends of mere law though justice has got to be. administered according to laws made by the, legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and pur- pose of the provision which seeks to. save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its. subjects, it would be impossible. to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction."

15. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in (1992) Supp 1 SCC 335, the Apex Court considered the scope of High Courts power under Section 482 to quash the FIR. The Apex Court in para 102 of the judgment has laid down the guidelines that must be adhered to while exercising inherent powers under Sections 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings. The relevant paragraph reads thus:

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of

R/CR.MA/783/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/05/2023

law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officersunder Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

R/CR.MA/783/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/05/2023

16. In the case of Janata Dal vs. H. S. Chowdhary, 1992(4) SCC 305, the Apex Court observed as under:

"132. The criminal courts are clothed with inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice. Such power though unrestricted and undefined should not be capriciously or arbitrarily exercised, but should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Courts must be careful to see that their decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. In Roy V.D. v. State of Kerala observed thus: (SCC p.597, para 18)

"18. It is well settled that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C has to be exercised by the High Court, inter alia, to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Where criminal proceedings are initiated based on illicit material collected on search and arrest which are per se illegal and vitiate not only a conviction and sentence based on such material but also the trial itself, the proceedings cannot be allowed to go on as it cannot but amount to abuse of the process of the court; in such a case not quashing the proceedings would perpetuate abuse of the process of the court resulting in great hardship and injustice to the accused. In our opinion, exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in a case like the one on hand, would indeed secure the ends of justice."

17. In the case of All Cargo Movers (India) Private Limited and others vs. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain and another, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 776, the Apex Court held that the criminal proceedings should not be encouraged when it is found to be mala fide or otherwise an abuse of process of the Court. The Court held in paragraph 16 of the judgment as follows:

"16. .. .. Where a civil suit is pending and the complaint petition has been filed one year after filing of the civil suit, we may for the purpose of finding out as to whether the said allegations are prima facie correct, take into consideration the correspondences

R/CR.MA/783/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/05/2023

exchanged by the parties and other admitted documents. It is one thing to say that the Court at this juncture would not consider the defence of the accused but it is another thing to say that for exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, it is impermissible also to look to the admitted documents. Criminal proceedings should not be encouraged, when it is found to be mala fide or otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court. Superior Courts while exercising this power should also strive to serve the ends of justice."

18. In Inder Mohan Goswami and another vs. State of Uttaranchal, reported in 2008 (1) SCC (Cri.) 259, it is observed by the Apex Court that frustrated litigant should not be permitted to give vent to their frustration by cheaply invoking jurisdiction of the criminal Court. The Apex Court held thus:

"29. In Chandrapal Singh v. Maharaj Singh in a landlord and tenant matter where criminal proceedings had been initiated, this Court observed in para 1 at page 467 as under:

"A frustrated landlord after having met his waterloo in the hierarchy of civil courts, has further enmeshed the tenant in a frivolous criminal prosecution which prima facie appears to be an abuse of the process of law. The facts when stated are so telling that the further discussion may appear to be superfluous." 30. The court noticed that the tendency of perjury is very much on the increase. Unless the courts come down heavily upon such persons, the whole judicial process would come to ridicule. The court also observed that chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustration by cheaply invoking jurisdiction of the criminal court."

19. In the case of R. Kalyani Vs. Janaksi Mehta & Ors. 2009 (1) SCC 516, the Apex Court held that, while dealing with the quashing of the FIR, the paramount duties of the court is to see that the person who is absolutely innocent may not be subjected to prosecution and humiliation on the basis of false and wholly

R/CR.MA/783/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/05/2023

untenable complaint.

20. In the case of Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan vs. Ram Gopal Poddar and another, (2010) 10 SCC 673, the Apex Court held that where allegations themselves are so absurd that no reasonable man would accept the same. The High Court could not have thrown its arms in air and expressed its inability to do anything in the matter. The Apex Court held as follows:-

"12.We reiterate that when the criminal Court looks into the complaint, it has to do so with an open mind. True it is that that is not the stage for finding out the truth or otherwise in the allegations; but where the allegations themselves are so absurd that no reasonable man would accept the same, the High Court could not have thrown its arms in the air and expressed its inability to do anything in the matter. Section 482 Cr.P.C. is a guarantee against injustice. The High Court is invested with the tremendous powers thereunder to pass any order in the interests of justice. Therefore, this would have been a proper case for the High Court to look into the allegations with the openness and then to decide whether to pass any order in the interests of justice. In our opinion, this was a case where the High Court ought to have used its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C."

21. In Harshendra Kumar D. Vs. Rebatilata Koley and Ors. 2011 (3) SCC 351, the Apex Court in its judgment more particularly in para 26 observed that the criminal prosecution is a serious mater and it affects the liberty of a person. No greater damage can be done to the reputation of a person, then dragging him in a criminal case.

22. In the case of Kapil Agarwal and others vs. Sanjay Sharma and others, (2021) 5 SCC 524, the Apex Court

R/CR.MA/783/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/05/2023

observed that section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, does not achieve the purpose of ensuring that the criminal proceedings are not permitted to generate into weapon of harassment.

23. I have perused the allegations levelled in the FIR and have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsels for the parties.

24. The issue falls for consideration of this Court whether, the case is made out for quashing of the FIR and the case of the applicant would fall under any of the categories enumerated in Bhajan Lal's case.

25. The first contention raised is that the allegations contained in the FIR are inherently improbable and absurd and the FIR is filed with malafide and ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused. It is in this context, if we read the contents of the FIR, it is alleged that the applicant herein threatened the third respondent on mobile that, "if the complainant initiated any legal proceedings against the applicant accused, then he will cause damage to the reputation and property of the company and he will have to face dire consequences". This is the crux of the matter. In the matter of quashing, the High Court shall have to scan the entire facts to find out the thrust of the allegations. In the facts of the present case, third respondent and

R/CR.MA/783/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/05/2023

others have liability to pay the amount of purchased shares as per the agreement dated 16.01.2012. Thereafter, relation being strained between the third respondent and the applicant, as despite several requests, the third respondent and his group failed to perform their obligation as per the agreement. The applicant herein tried to resolve the dispute and asked the third respondent and others to settle the dispute by way of domestic arbitration. However, in the course of dispute, the applicant herein filed company petition, invoking various provisions of the Companies Act. During the pendency of the company petition, the present FIR was being filed on 20.12.2013. The incident took place on 05.12.2013. On the next day i.e. 06.12.2013, written complaint addressed Police Commissioner was submitted by third respondent. In this background facts, the circumstances alleged in the FIR need to be appreciated. The IIF is the creditor, whereas, the third respondent and his company are debtor as they agreed to purchase the shares and accepted the financial liability as per the terms and conditions of agreement dated 16.01.2013 and after extension of time limit, the third respondent and others failed to honor the financial liability worth Rs.100 crore towards IIF company. Thus, the IIF is legally entitled to recover the due amount in accordance with law. The question does not arise to initiate the legal action either civil or criminal against IIF or the applicant herein as

R/CR.MA/783/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/05/2023

they are at the receiving end. Thus, the allegations that the applicant threatened the third respondent that if he initiate any proceedings against him, then he will have to face a dire consequences are prudently not acceptable and seem to be improbable. Thus, this Court is in complete agreement with the contentions raised by the applicant that the allegations in the FIR inherently improbable and absurd. The contention of the informant that at this stage, the probability or reliability of the allegations cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court. The contention is misconceived as when a case of abuse of process of Court is brought to the notice of the Court, then it is paramount duty of the court to prevent abuse of process of Court at its threshold. Thus, therefore, what has been stated above, I am convinced that the allegations are themselves so absurd that no reasonable man would accept the same.

26. The second contention raised herein is that, the FIR is being filed with ulterior and malafide intention and proceedings being used for settling a score or pressurize the party. It is in this context, considering the allegations levelled in the FIR and admitted facts about the filing of company petition and dispute about the management of the company as well as non-payment of purchased price of the shares, this Court is considered opinion that the FIR is being filed with oblique motive. The reasons for such conclusion are as follows:-

R/CR.MA/783/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/05/2023

(i) On the day of alleged incident dated 05.12.2013, the third respondent and his PRO were walking nearby Hotel Mariott. The hotel is situated in Satellite area of Ahmedabad. The Satellite Police Station is at a distance of 100 meter of the place of incident. The third respondent and his PRO immediately did not take any assistance of hotel management to file an FIR with Satellite Police Station. On the next day i.e. 06.12.2013, instead of filing the FIR with Satellite Police Station, the third respondent personally went to the police commissioner, Ahmedabad and filed a private complaint, which ultimately reached at Satellite Police Station, Ahmedabad.

(ii) In such circumstances, meeting with higher police officials, which otherwise, he could have filed FIR with concerned police station, would speak voluminous about the conduct and intention of the third respondent. Thus, it can be lead to inference that with oblique motive by using the influence of higher officials, the questioned FIR had been lodged. The applicant at the relevant point of time, was in Mumbai. It is alleged that the applicant threatened the third respondent that by using muscle powers, he will tarnish the image of the company and cause harm to the reputation of the third respondent. If the applicant accused having such power, then he could

R/CR.MA/783/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/05/2023

have been utilized it during the period of one year and six months to recover the due amount of IIF. The record indicates that the applicant requested the third respondent and others to resolve the dispute amicably. Even at the time of filing of Company Petition, they could have initiated other remedies available under the civil as well as criminal law. After lodging of the FIR, the applicant herein and third respondent personally met at the AGM of the company held on 30.12.2013 and thereafter, parties had entered into various correspondence. During this period, the third respondent never referred the alleged act of criminal intimidation and facts of the FIR. Thus, it is clear that the proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide for wrecking vengeance on the accused.

27. The contention raised by the third respondent that the applicant and Kothari Group having common interest and at the behest of Kothari Group, the proceedings under the company law, having been filed by the applicant herein and therefore, the investigation on this aspect requires to be undertaken thoroughly to find out the conspiracy hatched by the other group. This Court is of considered opinion that there is no iota of evidence to suggest that the applicant herein was involved with Kothari Group in the alleged offence registered with Surat Police Station for the offences punishable under

R/CR.MA/783/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/05/2023

Section 307 of IPC. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the contention cannot be accepted.

28. The other contention raised by the third respondent that let the matter would investigate thoroughly and at this stage, power should not be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution. This Court is of considered opinion that it would abuse of process of the Court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. The Apex Court in its various judgments has considered the ambit and scope of power of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing of criminal proceedings. It is beneficial to refer to and rely upon the decision of Apex Court in Vineet Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P, reported in 2017 (13) SCC 369. In para 41 of the judgments, the Apex Court observed that the inherent powers given to the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In case, solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at very threshold. The court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the categories enumerated in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra), wherein, it was observed that the judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into instrument of operation or harassment. When there are materials to

R/CR.MA/783/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/05/2023

indicate that criminal proceedings is manifestly attended with malafides and proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court will not hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code to quash the proceedings.

29. The result of the foregoing discussion is that the applicant has made out a case for this Court to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. The categories (i), (v) and (vii) as enumerated in the case of Bhajan Lal (Supra) are clearly attracted and therefore, in my opinion, in order to prevent the abuse of process of Court and law and to secure the ends of justice, this is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the impugned FIR.

30. Resultantly, present application is allowed. The FIR being C.R.No.II-3275/2013 registered with Satellite Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 506(2), 507 and 114 of IPC read with Section 135 (1) of the Gujarat Police Act and other consequential proceedings, if any, are hereby quashed qua the present applicant. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.

(ILESH J. VORA,J) SUCHIT