Point in Issue :
Whether in the fact the complaint against petitioner and other accused is liable to be quashed.

D.H. Waghela, J.—After the arguments having been concluded by learned Counsel Mr. Anjaria at the time of last hearing, the petition was argued de novo by learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Thakore, and it was specifically declared that the petitioner did not propose to withdraw the petition but invited a judgement.

2. The petitioner has invoked provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. read with Article 226 of the Constitution for the relief of quashing Criminal Inquiry Case No. 11 of 2003, in which, by order dated 22.07.2005, summons for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 120-B, 34 and 427 of IPC are ordered to be issued to all the five accused persons, one of whom is the petitioner.

3. The original complainant, Gujarat Maritime Board, Respondent No. 2 herein, has filed the complaint dated 13.08.2003 with elaborate details of the accused persons having assured the complainant about payment of rent, and the plot and the structures thereon being entrusted to the accused persons on the basis of their assurance of regular payment of rent with additional promise of not damaging the premises or the structures thereon. It is alleged in the complaint that, clearly with an intention to cheat right from the inception, the accused persons had, in the name of their company, joined as accused No. 1, occupied the premises, used it for storing imported logs and after about 08 years of such use, have damaged the properties of the complainant on account of fire breaking out in the premises. Thus, a total loss of Rs. 41,09,180/- is alleged to have been caused and that loss and damage, after being subject matter of a civil suit, have resulted on 07.11.2007 into the decree which the complainant is unable to execute.

4. The original complaint dated 13.08.2003 was ordered to be investigated by P.I. of Mandavi Police Station by an order under Section 202 of CrPC on the same day and a report of investigation, alongwith statements of witnesses and other documents, was submitted to the trial Court. After considering the material, impugned order dated 22.07.2005 for issuing summons was issued. The trial Court has, in that order, elaborately dealt with the contentions in the complaint as also the report of investigation and recorded prima facie findings to the effect that assurances were given by the accused persons about regular payment, that goods were removed from the plot with a view to causing loss to the complainant, that huge amount of rent was overdue, that a civil suit had had to be filed but, by some transactions in the name of the company, the decree could not be executed, that cheating was committed with a pre-determined intention and the accused persons appeared to have entered into a criminal conspiracy, which had actually resulted into the accused person even obtaining the amount of insurance upon the logs lying at the rented premises being burnt.

5. Without responding to the summons and apprising themselves about the report and result of the investigation which was carried on for almost two years, one of the accused persons rushed to this Court and further proceedings of the whole case, which is now registered as Criminal Case No. 228 of 2005, is stayed by the first order dated 27.11.2006 granting ad-interim relief in terms of Para 10(C) of the petition. Thus, the other accused persons have also enjoyed the ad-interim relief and immunity from prosecution for over five years even without approaching any Court.

6. It was argued by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Thakore, appearing for the petitioner, that none of the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 120-B, 34 and 427 were made out in the complaint, particularly against the petitioner, who was accused No. 4 and only stated to be a Director of the Company in whose name the premises was taken on rent. He submitted that the complaint required specific allegations against the accused persons and must disclose all the important ingredients of the offences alleged, whereas