Gujarat High Court
Karamshi Dalabhai Desai vs State Of Gujarat on 17 September, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16543/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 16543 of 2019
(FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER)
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 16545 of 2019
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 1 of 2021
In
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 16543 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI : Sd/-
=======================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be NO
allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the
fair copy of the judgment ? NO
4 Whether this case involves a substantial
question of law as to the interpretation
of the Constitution of India or any NO
order made thereunder ?
=======================================================
KARAMSHI DALABHAI DESAI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR MTM HAKIM for MR SAQUIB S ANSARI(7152) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MR MB GOHIL(2702) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR NS TAHILRAMANI(2576) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR JAY MEHTA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=======================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 17/09/2024
CAV JUDGMENT
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16543/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2024
undefined
1. Rule. Learned advocates appearing for the parties
waive service of notice of rule.
2. As the facts involved in both the petitions and
parties are identical, with the consent of learned
advocates appearing for the parties, both the petitions
are heard together and disposed of by this common
judgment and order.
3. For deciding both the petitions, the facts of
Criminal Misc. Application No.16543 of 2019 are taken
into consideration.
4. By way of preferring present petition under
section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
the petitioners applicants-original accused Nos.9 to
14, seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court,
inter alia, praying for the following main relief:
"(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash
the Criminal Case No.6364 of 2018 filed before the
Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedabad
(Rural) for offence punishable under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, qua the
petitioners"
5. The case of the complainant can be summarized
thus:
5.1. It is alleged in the Criminal Case No. 6364 of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16543/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2024
undefined
2018 that the respondent No. 2 - complainant and his
wife were owners and in possession of agricultural land
of Account No. 377, Block - Survey No. 185 admeasuring
0-28-33 sq. mtrs. of Village Memnagar, Taluk Ghatlodia
of District & Sub-District Ahmedabad-13 (City Taluka)
(hereinafter referred to as "Suit Property No. 1") and
agricultural land of Account No. 378, Block Survey No.
186/1 admeasuring 0-19-28 square meter of village
Memnagar, Taluka Ahmedabad West, District & Sub-
District Ahmedabad-13 (City Taluka) and (hereinafter
referred to as "the Suit Property No. 2"). It is
further alleged that with the consent of respondent No.
2 - complainant and his wife, the original owners of
the said suit properties sold it to petitioner Nos. 2
to 6 herein by executing 2 Registered Sale Deeds dated
12/11/2014 and 20/05/2016 respectively. Furthermore, it
is alleged that even though the said 2 Registered Sale
Deeds were executed for consideration of Rs.
2,79,00,000/- (Two Crores and Seventy Nine Lakhs) and
Rs. 4,95,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores and Ninety Five
Lakhs), the actual amount of the land was Rs.
37,51,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Crores and Fifty
One Lakhs) and for that an agreement was executed
between respondent No. 2 - complainant and her wife and
petitioner No. 1 herein. It is further alleged that out
of the said amoutn of Rs. 37,51,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty
Seven Crores and Fifty One Lakhs), Rs. 25,98,50,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Crores Ninety Eight Lakhs and Fifty
Thousand) is paid, whereas Rs. 11,50,00,000/- (Rupees
Eleven Crores and Fifty Lakhs) is not paid. It is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16543/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2024
undefined
further alleged that Shri Siddhivinayak Associates - A
Registered Partnership Firm through their authorized
signatory, original accused No. 6, issued 7 cheques of
different amounts of total Rs. 11,50,00,000/- (Rupees
Eleven Crores and Fifty Lakhs). It is alleged that the
said cheques when deposited were dishonored and
therefore, notice under section 138 of the NI Act was
issued for one such dishonoured cheque on 06/06/2018
and the petitioners herein as well as other persons
replied to the said notice on 28/06/2018. Thereafter,
the complainant lodged criminal complainant which was
numbered as Criminal Case No. 6364 of 2018 for
dishonoured of a Cheque bearing No. 012375 of IDBI
against the accused persons including the present
petitioners.
6. Heard learned advocate Mr. M. T. M. Hakim assisted
by learned advocate Mr. Saquib Ansari for the
petitioners, learned APP Mr. Jay Mehta for respondent -
State and learned advocate Mr. M. B. Gohil for
respondent No.2 - original complainant.
7. Learned advocate Mr. M.T.M. Hakim assisted by
learned advocate Mr. Saquib Ansari for the petitioners
submits that following factual aspects are required to
be considered so as to decide the present petitions:
(i) That for various relief/s including recovery
of money as per the cheques and for cancellation of
Registered Sale Deeds, the respondent No. 2-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16543/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2024
undefined
complainant and his wife preferred suit, being Special
Civil Suit No. 207 of 2018 before the learned Senior
Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural). Moreover, in the said
proceedings, the respondent No. 2- complainant and his
wife have impleaded the petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 herein
as defendant Nos. 1 to 6 and the original owners of the
land as defendant Nos. 7 to 21. Furthermore, the
partners of the partnership firm - Shri Siddhivinayak
Associates who are arraigned as original accused Nos. 1
to 8 in the present Criminal Case are not impleaded as
party respondents in the said Suit and no relief's is
sought against them.
(ii) That the Suit Property No. 1 - Agricultural
land of Account No. 377 and Suit Property No. 2 -
Agricultural land of Account No. 378 were originally
owned by 2 group of persons, i.e., Defendant Nos. 7 to
15 and Defendant Nos. 16 to 21 respectively as
impleaded in Special Civil Suit No. 207 of 2018. From
admeasuring 3388 square yards, it is claimed that the
original owners, i.e., Defendant No. 7 to 15 in Civil
Suit executed an agreement to sell dated 26/02/1996 for
2260 square yards in favour of Respondent No. 2-
Complainant and 3 other persons. Moreover, it is
further claimed that the Respondent No. 2- Complainant
executed 3 agreements to sell dated 29/04/1996 in
favour of other persons. It is also claimed that the
original owners executed Agreement to Sell with one
Subham Enterprises, a Partnership Firm. It is further
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16543/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2024
undefined
claimed that subsequently, the said Subham Enterprises,
a Partnership Firm executed Agreement to Sell dated
19/11/2007 in favour of the Respondent No. 2-
Complainant and his wife and 4 Others persons.
(iii) Similarly for land survey No. 186/1 - Suit
Property No. 2, it is claimed that an Agreement to Sell
dated 19/01/2001 for 1260 square meters out of 1928
square meters was executed by the original owners,
i.e., Defendant Nos. 16 to 21 in the Suit in favour of
wife of Respondent No. 2 i.e. Shrimati Kamuben Somabhai
Desai.
(iv) Thereafter, the petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 herein
intended to purchase the said lands being Land Survey
No. 186/1 - Suit Property No. 2. In pursuance thereto,
the wife of the Respondent No. 2 executed two documents
viz., (i) Cancellation Deed cum Consent Agreement and
Possession Deed and (ii) Assignment Deed, both dated
10/11/2014. Thereby, wife of Respondent No. 2 after
taking consideration as mentioned in the said deeds,
relinquished, assigned and transferred whatsoever right
she had in the said land in favour of the original
owners and thereafter, the original owners executed
Registered Sale Deed dated 12/11/2014 Registered at
Serial No. 2192 for the said land in favour of the
Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6. In view thereof, the
transaction of the land Survey No. 187 - Suit Property
No. 2 is complete and the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 have
become the owners and are in possession of the said
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16543/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2024
undefined
land Survey No. 187-Suit Property No. 2 and no other
person has any right, title and interest in the said
property.
(v) Similarly, Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 intended to
purchase the Land Survey No. 185 - Suit Property No. 1.
Therefore, the Respondent No. 2- Complainant and his
wife and 7 other persons executed Four documents viz.,
(i) 2 Cancellation Deeds cum Consent Agreements and
Possession Deeds and (ii) 2 Assignment and Transfer
Deeds, all dated 20/05/2016. Thereby, the Respondent
No. 2- Complainant and his wife and seven other persons
after taking considerations as mentioned in the said
deeds, relinquished, assigned and transferred
whatsoever right they had in the said land in favour of
the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 herein and thereafter, on
20/11/2015 itself, the original owners executed
Registered Sale Deed, which came be Registered at
Serial No. 1174 in favour of Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3
herein. In view thereof, the transaction of the land
Survey No. 185 - Suit Property No. 1 is complete and
the Petitioner No. 2 and 3 have become the owners and
are in possession of the said land Survey No. 185-Suit
Property No. 1 and no other person has any right, title
and interest in the said property.
(vi) Subsequently, vide orders dated 06/12/2016
and 24/03/2017, the petitioners obtained permission for
utilizing the aforesaid lands for Non-Agricultural use
and thereafter they also obtained permission for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16543/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2024
undefined
development and construction on the said lands.
Moreover, the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 also paid
Betterment Charges and Municipal Corporation Tax for
the said lands. Thereafter, vide 2 Registered Sale
Deeds dated 15/06/2018, the Petitioners 2 to 6 sold the
aforesaid lands to a partnership Firm - SKD's Surya
Build Bands (LLP).
(vii) In the meanwhile and after pocketing substantial
amount of consideration as mentioned above for
relinquishing, assigning and transferring whatsoever
rights they had in the said lands, the respondent No. 2
- complainant alleged that the petitioner No. 1
executed one undated, unnotarized and unattested
agreement with the Respondent No. 2- Complainant and
his wife for the aforesaid lands for consideration of
Re 37,50,00,000/- and it is further alleged that out of
the said consideration, Rs. 25,98,50,000/- is paid,
whereas Rs. 11,50,00,000/- is not paid. Moreover, for
the said unpaid amount, one partnership firm - Shri
Siddhivinayak Associates through their authorized
signatory - Accused No. 6, issued 7 cheques as follows.
(i) Two Cheques being Cheque Nos. 12731 and 12732
of IDBI Bank dated 03/05/2018 for Rs. 2 Crores each
in favour of Shri Somabhai Sartanbhai Desai -
complainant.
(ii) Two Cheques being Cheque Nos. 12733 and 12734
of IDBI Bank dated 03/05/2018 for Rs. 2 Crores each
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16543/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2024
undefined
in favour of Shrimati Kamuben @ Kamlaben Desai -
wife of the complainant.
(iii) One Cheque being No. 12735 of IDBI Bank dated
21/05/2018 for Rs. 1.5 Crores in favour of Shri
Somabhai Sartanbhai Desai - complainant.
(iv) Two Cheques being Cheque Nos. 12736 and 12741
of IDBI Bank dated 03/05/2018 for Rs. 1.5 Crores
and 50 Lakhs respectively in favour of Shrimati
Kamuben @ Kamlaben Desai - wife of Complaint.
(viii) Moreover, it is further alleged that the
aforesaid cheques when deposited were dishonoured.
Furthermore, when one cheque being Cheque No. 012375 of
IDBI Bank dated 21/05/2018 of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- (Rupees
One Crore and Fifty Lakhs) was deposited by the
respondent No. 2- complainant on 21/05/2018, the said
cheque was dishonoured and therefore, respondent No. 2-
complainant issued notice dated 06/06/2018 to all the
persons; i.e., the partnership firm and its partners
being accused Nos. 1 to 8, the person with whom they
alleged to have entered into agreement, i.e., accused
No. 9 - petitioner No. 1 and the persons who have
purchased the aforesaid lands after executing
Registered Sale Deeds, i.e., accused Nos. 10 to 14 -
petitioner Nos. 2 to 6.
(ix) On 28/06/2018, the petitioner No. 1 herein replied
to the aforesaid notice dated 06/06/2018 and denied the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16543/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2024
undefined
contentions and averments made in the said notice in
toto. The petitioner No. 1 further clarified that the
Petitioner No. 1 has not issued the said cheques.
Furthermore, the petitioner No. 1 also informed the
respondent No. 2- complainant and his wife that they
have relinquished whatsoever rights they had in the
said lands after execution of the Cancellation and
Assignment Deeds, Possession Deed and subsequent
Registered Sale Deeds by the original owners and
therefore, the agreement of purposed sale of land is
not a legal and valid agreement.
(x) On 28/06/2018, the petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 also
replied to the aforesaid notice dated 06/06/2018 and
denied the contentions and averments in toto. The
Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 in their reply further clarified
that the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 have not issued the
said cheques. Furthermore, the Petitioners also
informed the Respondent No. 2- Complainant and his wife
that the transaction between the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6
and the Respondent No. 2- Complainant and his wife is
complete after execution of the Cancellation and
Assignment Deeds, Possession Deed and the subsequent
Registered Sale Deeds by the original owners.
(xi) However, on 19/07/2018 the respondent No. 2 -
complainant preferred the aforesaid Criminal Case
before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Ahmedabad (Rural) mala fidely and with an ulterior
motive to extort money from the petitioners. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16543/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2024
undefined
respondent No. 2- complainant also arraigned the
Petitioners herein.
7.1. Learned advocate Mr. Hakim submits that without
considering the fact that the petitioners have not
issued the cheque in question, the learned JMFC,
Ahmedabad (Rural) mechanically issued process to the
petitioners herein. He further submits that even before
issuance of the notice under section 138, the
respondent No. 2- complainant and his wife filed civil
suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 7 of 2018 before the
learned Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural).
Moreover, as stated hereinabove, the respondent No. 2-
complainant and his wife have impleaded the petitioners
herein as defendant Nos. 1 to 6, and the original
owners of the land as defendant Nos. 7 to 21.
Furthermore, the partners of the partnership firm Shri
Siddhivinayak Associates who are arraigned as accused
Nos. 1 to 8 in the present Criminal Case and who have
allegedly issued the cheques are not impleaded as party
respondents in the said suit and no relief is sought
against them.
7.2. Learned advocate Mr. Hakin further submits that
after bi parte hearing, vide order dated 30/07/2019,
the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural)
rejected the application Exhibit 5 of the respondent
No. 2- complainant and his wife. It is further
submitted that for dishonour of Cheque No. 12736 and
Cheque No. 12741 dated 21/05/2018, the wife of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16543/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2024
undefined
respondent No. 2 has filed Criminal Case No. 6457 of
2018. Moreover, for dishonour of Cheque No. 12731 and
12732, the respondent No. 2- complainant has preferred
Criminal Case No. 12050 of 2018. However, in the said
Criminal Case, vide order dated 09/10/2018, the summons
came to be issued only to accused No. 1 to 9, whereas
summons were not issued to the petitioners in the said
case. The said order is not assailed by the respondent
No. 2- complainant. Moreover, for Cheque No. 12733 and
12734 dated 03/05/2018, Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No. 1412 of 2018 is registered on
04/07/2018, however the learned JMFC, Ahmedabad (Rural)
has not yet taken cognizance of the said application.
7.3. Learned advocate Mr. Hakim submits that in view of
the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and
since the impugned criminal cases being Criminal Case
Nos. 6364 of 2018 and 6457 of 2018 are non-
maintainable being filed against the persons who have
not issued the cheque, the charge of section 138 is not
made out against the petitioners. He further submits
that it is not in dispute that petitioners are neither
the partners of a partnership firm nor the signatories
of the instruments in question and the said fact is
clearly found out from the complaint filed by the
complainant. He further submits that when the
petitioners are neither the partners of the partnership
firm nor the signatories of the instruments in
question, the ultimate chances of conviction of the
petitioners are bleak and continuance of the criminal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16543/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2024
undefined
prosecution against the petitioners is nothing but
sheer abuse of process of the Court.
7.4. Learned advocate Mr. Hakim submits that in view of
the aforesaid factual aspects, it becomes ex-facie
evident and apparent that respondent No. 2- complainant
and his wife and the other persons executed agreements
and thereby relinquished their rights and assigned and
transferred whatsoever rights they had in the Suit
Properties in favour of the petitioners herein after
taking substantial consideration as mentioned in the
said deeds. Moreover, there is no dispute qua the said
agreements. He, therefore, submits that present
petitions may be allowed by quashing the proceedings of
criminal cases instituted against the present
petitioners by the respondent No.2 - original
complainant.
8. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. M. B.
Gohil, who appears on behalf of original complainant
has objected present petitions with vehemence and
submitted that at the time of registration of the
complaint, complainant has narrated entire sequence of
events of incident in very graphical manner and if this
Hon'ble Court would make cursory glance upon the
contents of the complaint, in that event, it would be
found out that present petitioners are also involved in
the offence. They have actively participated and at
their instance complainant had entered into business
transaction with accused Nos. 1 to 8 and complainant is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16543/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2024
undefined
taken into trap by accused Nos. 1 to 8 and rest of the
accused persons have directly or indirectly facilitated
the main accused persons knowing fully well that the
intention of the accused Nos. 1 to 8 is not pure and
clear and there are all possible chances that the
complainant would be duped by the accused Nos. 1 to 8,
even though, they have supported accused Nos. 1 to 8
and taken the complainant into confidence to carry out
business transaction and under the influence of the
said favour provided by the present petitioners
complainant had entered into said transaction.
Therefore, present petitioners are equally responsible
in the said offence. Learned advocate Mr. Gohil has
candidly accepted that present petitioners are neither
the partners of the partnership firm nor the
signatories of the instruments in question. Learned
advocate Mr. Gohil further submits that to prove the
charges levelled against the accused persons, evidence
is required to be led and without leading the evidence,
those facts cannot be brought on record and this is the
premature stage and merely on the ground that present
petitioners are neither the partners of the partnership
firm nor the signatories of the instruments in
question, the prosecution launched against them cannot
be quashed. Learned advocate Mr. Gohil has put
reliance upon the recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of S. P. Mani and Mohan Dairy v.
Snehalatha Elangovan, reported in (2023) 10 SCC 685 and
submitted that as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the aforesaid decision, if any Director or Partner
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16543/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2024
undefined
wants the process to be quashed by filing a petition
under Section 482 of the Code on the ground that only a
bald averment is made in the complaint and that he is
really not concerned with the issuance of the cheque,
he must in order to persuade the High Court to quash
the process either furnish some sterling
incontrovertible material or acceptable circumstances
to substantiate his contention. He must make out a case
that making him stand the trial would be an abuse of
process of court. The complaint cannot be quashed
merely on the ground that apart from the basic averment
no particulars are given in the complaint about his
role. Thus, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the aforesaid case is squarely applicable to
the facts of the present case and with a view to quash
the proceedings of the criminal case petitioners have
to furnish some sterling incontrovertible material
which ultimately would substantiate the claim of the
petitioners. Here, in the case on hand, if allegations
levelled against the petitioners are to be seen, in
that event, their actual role and active participation
in the commission of crime is clearly found out. Hence,
the learned Trial Court has rightly passed the order of
issuance of process against the petitioners and the
said order is just, fair and based upon the sound
principle of law and therefore the present petitions
being devoid of merits deserve dismissal.
9. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for
the parties and having gone through the material placed
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16543/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2024
undefined
on record, it is found out that admittedly the
petitioners are neither the partners of the partnership
firm nor the signatories of the instruments in question
and therefore I am of the considered view that
proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioners are
nothing but sheer abuse of process of the Court and
while passing the order of issuance of process against
the petitioners, the learned Court concerned has
committed an error, which warrants interference by this
Court.
10. It is also pertinent to note that respondent No.2
and his wife have also filed one suit before the
concerned Court against the present petitioners and
others and in the said suit original accused Nos. 1 to
8 are not impleaded as party and no relief is sought
against them. It is not in dispute that original
accused No.6 is the authorized signatory of accused
No.1 - partnership firm i.e. Shri Siddhivinayak
Associates and accused nos. 2 to 8 are the partners of
the said partnership firm. The accused No.6 has signed
the instruments in question, which were dishonoured.
The complainant is not in a position to dispute the
fact that petitioners are not the partners of the said
partnership firm and they are not the signatories of
the instruments in question. On the contrary, the said
fact is clearly found out from the complaint of the
complainant filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
Thus, when the petitioners are not the partners of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16543/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2024
undefined
partnership firm and signatories of the instruments in
question, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied
on by learned advocate Mr. Gohil for the respondent
No.2 would not be applicable in the facts of the
present case.
11. At this juncture, I would like to refer and rely
upon the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex in the
case of Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and Another ,
reported in (2024) 4 Supreme 347, wherein the Hon'ble
Apex Court has observed and held as under:
"20. It is now well settled that the power under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has to be exercised
sparingly, carefully and with caution, only where
such exercise is justified by the tests laid down
in the Section itself. It is also well settled that
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. does not confer any new
power on the High Court but only saves the inherent
power, which the Court possessed before the
enactment of the Criminal Procedure Code. There are
three circumstances under which the inherent
jurisdiction may be exercised, namely (i) to give
effect to an order under the code, (ii) to prevent
abuse of the process of Court, and (iii) to
otherwise secure the ends of justice.
xxx xxx xxx
23. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC
866, this Court summarised some categories of cases
where inherent power can, and should be exercised
to quash the proceedings:
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a
legal bar against the institution or continuance
e.g. want of sanction.
(ii) where the allegations in the first
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16543/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2024
undefined
information report or complaint taken at its face
value and accepted in their entirety do not
constitute the offence alleged.
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence,
but there is no legal evidence adduced or the
evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to
prove the charge."
12. Thus, if the allegations levelled against the
petitioners in the complaints filed under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act are taken at its face
value and accepted in their entirety, they do not
constitute the offence alleged, insofar as the present
petitioners are concerned. It is well settled that when
the instrument is signed by the authorized signatory of
a partnership firm, the prosecution under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be instituted
against the persons, who were in-charge and responsible
for the conduct of the business of the partnership firm
at the relevant time when the offence was committed.
It is also pertinent to note that complainant and his
wife preferred four complainants of similar nature
against the accused persons which are pending before
different Courts. However, out of the said four
complaints, in two complainants, another Court passed
order of issuance of process against the original
accused Nos. 1 to 8 only (partnership firm and its
partners) and in two complaints in question, the
learned Trial Court has passed the orders, whereby
process came to be issued against all the accused
persons including the present petitioners also. Thus,
in the instant case, when the petitioners are neither
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16543/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2024
undefined
the partners nor the signatories of the instruments in
question, prosecution instituted against them is
nothing but sheer misuse of process of the Court and
the learned trial Court has overlooked the said
important aspect and committed an error while issuing
process against the petitioners for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. Thus, without going into the further
details of the matter, only on the ground that
petitioners are neither the partners of the partnership
firm nor the signatories of the instruments in
question, the present petitions are required to be
allowed.
13. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the
petitions succeed and are accordingly allowed. The
proceedings of Criminal Case Nos. 6364 of 2018 and 6457
of 2018 pending in the Court of Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural) are quashed qua
the petitioners.
14. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
15. Connected application, if any, stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.)
Lavkumar Jani/Gautam
