2010 (3) GCD 2441 (Guj)
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi
Chandrakantbhai Purshottambhaipatel
Versus
State of Gujarat & Ors.
Special Criminal Application No. 682 of 20031—Decided on 27/08/20102
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 195 and 340 - Indian Penal code, 1860 - Sections 467, 468, 470, 471 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Special Criminal Application has been filed by original accused -, he seeks quashing of criminal complaint - Offences alleged are those punishable under sections 467, 468, 470, 471 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code - By way of amendment, the petitioner has also challenged an order dated 19.8.2002 passed by District Judge, by which District Judge had directed the Registrar to lodge the above-mentioned complaint - Held that, plain and simple case of fabrication of document and would not be covered under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Criminal Procedure Code - Court not to take cognizance otherwise than on complaint of Court concerned in writing as contained in Section 195(1) would not apply - Ground for quashing of complaint not made out - Petition dismissed
Akil Kureshi, J.—Since all these proceedings arise out of common background, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Brief facts leading to these proceedings need to be noted at the outset.
3. Special Criminal Application No. 682 of 2003 has been filed by one Chandrakant Parshottambhai Patel (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the original accused’). In this petition, he seeks quashing of criminal complaint bearing C.R.No.I-129/02 dated 21.08.2002 registered at Dhokla Police Station. Offences alleged are those punishable under sections 467, 468, 470, 471 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. By way of amendment, the petitioner has also challenged an order dated 19.8.2002 passed by the learned District Judge, Ahmedabad Rural, by which the learned District Judge had directed the Registrar to lodge the above-mentioned complaint.
3.1 It appears that the petitioner herein had filed Criminal Case No. 254A of 2000 against his brother Ishwarbhai Parsottambhai Patel in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dholka for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act for dishonour of cheque of Rs. 70 lakhs allegedly given by Ishwarbhai Parshottambhai. The learned Magistrate had issued summons. Ishwarbhai had appeared in response to the summons. The trial was being conducted. Prosecution witnesses were examined. When the stage reached for recording statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Ishwarbhai approached the High Court by filing Criminal Misc. Application No. 4730 of 2001 seeking quashing of the cheque bouncing complaint. He, however, on 2.7.2001 withdrew the said quashing petition from the High Court with permission to approach the Trial Court. Thereupon, Ishwarbhai filed application Exh. 47 in Criminal Case No. 254A of 2000 levelling allegations of illegalities in filing of the said criminal case. It is stated that subsequently, this application was also withdrawn. Ishwarbhai, however, made grievance about the manner in which the said complaint was registered. Eventually, the District Judge on 19.8.02 directed the Registrar of the Court to lodge a complaint before Dholka Police Station with respect to filing of Criminal Case No. 254A of 2000 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Dholka.
3.2 The Registrar thereupon lodged the said complaint on 21.8.2002. In the complaint, it is stated, inter alia, that upon inquiry with respect to Criminal Case No. 254A of 2000, it is revealed that Criminal Case No. 253 of 2000 was registered before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Dholka on 25.1.2000 and the first date of the case was fixed on 11.2.2000, i.e. 17 days later. Upon perusal, it is revealed that two cases were registered under number 254 of 2000. The case of the complainant, Chandrakant Parshottambhai against Ishwarbhai Parshottambhai was numbered as 254/A/2000 and was shown to have been registered on 25.1.2000. The case pertains to offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The first date fixed was 25.4.2000 i.e. after three months. In the said case, in none of the pages of the complaint, initials or signatures of the Registrar are to be found. On the presentation also, there is no stamp found. On the complaint, statement of the complainant is being recorded right below the complaint. Though there was sufficient space, such statement was recorded on a separate paper. It is further revealed that after registering the complaint, process fee was not paid till 25.4.2000, despite which summons was issued on 25.4.2000. It is further alleged that vakalatnama at Exh. 3/A has been produced subsequently. No one has identified the signature of the complainant. Upon perusal of the complaint, case papers, register and the summons, it would appear that Complaint No. 254/A/2000 has been filed later on. It is, therefore, alleged that the present petitioner, viz. Chandrakant Parshottambhai Patel in conni
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.