VIPUL M.PANCHOLI,J. - (1.)All these applications involve identical questions on law and facts and hence, they are decided by this common judgment.
(2.)These applications have been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code") with the prayer to quash and set aside the impugned FIRs and also the consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance of the said FIRs. The details of the FIRs, along with the corresponding applications, are mentioned in the tabular form here under; JUDGEMENT_245_LAWS(GJH)8_2017_1.html For the purpose of this judgment, Criminal Misc. Application No.2787 of 2012 is taken as the lead matter;
(3.)Learned advocate Mr. C.B. Upadhyaya appearing for the applicants submitted that the applicants are Brokers engaged in the business of dealing in scraps arising out of the breaking of ships at Alang Shipbreaking yard. It was submitted that accused Kartik Salot (viz. applicant in Cri. Misc. Application No.2793 of 2012) had purchased certain quantity of goods from the respondent complainants on behalf of the concerned purchasers, who are also coaccused in the FIRs. On receipt of payment from the concerned purchasers, the co-accused made payment towards said goods to the respondent complainant. In respect of the transaction in question, the goods were supplied by the concerned complainant through the applicants and they were received by the concerned purchasers. Similarly, insofar as accused Purav Shah (viz. Applicant in Cri. Misc. Application No.2787 of 2012) is concerned, he worked as the main Broker. The applicant accused purchased the goods and delivered it to the concerned purchaser. The concerned purchasers issued cheques of the requisite amount in favour of the concerned complainant, however, the same was dishonored. It was submitted that even as per the allegations made in the impugned FIRs, the applicants were the purchasers of the goods in question and that the cheques were issued by the concerned purchasers and the applicants. Therefore, the applicants cannot be held guilty of committing the offence in question. It was, therefore, prayed that the impugned FIRs be quashed and set aside. 3. 1 Learned advocate Mr. Upadhyaya, thereafter, submitted that even as per the allegations made in the impugned FIRs, the concerned purchaser informed the complainant that he had received the goods sent by the complainant and that he had sold said goods to some other party. However, the amount received by him has been paid to a third party. Thus, even as per the allegations made in the FIRs, the co-accused admitted that he had sold the goods received from the complainant to a third party and that the amount received by him from such sale has been paid to some other party. Hence, the applicants cannot be held liable for the act of the co-accused persons. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. 2 Learned advocate submitted that even if it is presumed that the complainant had sold the goods in question to the applicants and that the applicants had made payment towards such goods, then also the applicants could be held guilty for the alleged offence since the dispute is of a civil nature and the complainant has to take recourse under the civil law. It was, therefore, requested that the impugned FIRs deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. 3 Learned advocate lastly submitted that a plain reading of the impugned FIRs do disclose the existence of the ingredients of the alleged offence. Therefore, the present proceedings are nothing but, a clear abuse of the process of Court. Hence, the impugned FIRs deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. 4 Learned advocate placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of V.Y. Jose and another v. State of Gujarat and another reported in (2009) 3 SCC 78 .