BHARATBHAI JAYANTIBHAI JETHWA REPRESENTATIVE OF VISHMAY MKTG & 1 ANR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 ANR
LAWS(GJH)-2014-8-226
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on August 12,2014

Bharatbhai Jayantibhai Jethwa Representative Of Vishmay Mktg And 1 Anr Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Gujarat And 1 Anr Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE respondent no.2original complainant registered a complaint being C.R. No.I293 of 2008 with Sector7, Gandhinagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 r/w. 114 of I.P.C. The petitioners have filed present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and prayed to quash the proceedings of complaint being C.R. No.I293 of 2008 registered with Sector7, Gandhinagar Police Station on 23.06.2008.
(2.) AS per say of respondent No.2original complainant that present petitioners have received amount of Rs.15,000/from the complainant for the purpose of agency of 'Vishmay Marketing' and further say of the complainant that the complainant had paid Rs.10,000/in the name of 'Vishmay Marketing' and Rs.5,000/is paid by cash to the present petitioners. That present petitioners have deposited Rs.5,000/in the account of company for the purpose of agency of 'Vishmay Marketing' and due to the unavoidable circumstances, the goods were not supplied to the complainant and the amount was also not refunded to the complainant. Therefore, the present complaint came to be filed against the present petitioners.
(3.) AS per the say of the present petitioners that they are not responsible for the alleged offence. Actually, the 'Vishmay Marketing Company', through whom the amount was received, is not joined as an accused in the said FIR. It is further submitted by the present petitioners that it is only a goal of the respondentoriginal complainant to recover the amount of Rs.5,000/i.e. the conduct of the present respondentoriginal complainant shows that the petitioners have committed criminal offence. In the event of filing of this petition on 24.03.2009, this Court has passed following order: "Heard learned counsel for the applicants. Rule. In the meanwhile, prayer in terms of para 13(C) is granted till further orders. However, it is made clear that if the applicant is ready and willing to pay Rs.5,000/, which was paid in cash by the complainant and the complainant is ready to accept the same, the above stay will not come in the way." Heard Mr. HN Brahmbhatt, learned counsel for the petitioners. Rule was served to the respondents and for the respondent no.1, learned Additional Public Prosecutor is present.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.