IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
C.L. Soni, J.
Dineshbhai Purshottambhai Patel and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Gujarat and Others – Respondents
Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 18388, 18389, 18390, 18391, 18690, 18691, 20446 to 20449 of 2013, 462, 1217, 2402, 2403, 20928, 20945, 20947 of 2014, 24146 of 2015 & Special Criminal Application Nos. 7520, 7386 of 2015
Decided On : 17-02-2017
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 482, 156 – Petitioner filed matter seeking to quash different First Information Reports registered by invoking inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the other to quash M. Case registered by invoking the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code – M. Case was registered based on the order made by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, under Section 156(3) of the Code in private complaint – Held, Court finds that there is also no substance in the contention raised by learned advocate for the petitioners that the allegations of the private complaint do not disclose the offences alleged – Allegations do disclose the offences and therefore investigation into the allegations is required as ordered by learned Magistrate – Court finds that all these petitions are required to be dismissed – Petitions Dismissed (Paras 39, 40)
C.L. Soni, J.
1. From amongst this group of matters, some are filed seeking to quash different First Information Reports (FIRs for short) registered as I.C.R. No. 31 of 2013 to I.C.R. No. 34 of 2013 with Surat DCB Police Station by invoking inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code for short) and the other to quash M. Case No. 1 of 2015 registered with Athwa Lines Police Station, Surat by invoking the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code. The M. Case No. 1 of 2015 was registered based on the order made by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat under Section 156(3) of the Code in private complaint.
2. Since the allegations in the FIRs as also in the complaint concern the public charitable trust named "The Surat Islamic Yatim Khana Society Trust" (the trust, for short), the petitions were taken up for hearing together for final disposal.
3. For the sake of convenience, the petitions are considered in two different groups. The first group would consist of the matters where the FIRs being I.C.R. No. 31 of 2013 to I.C.R. No. 34 of 2013 are sought to be quashed. The second group would consist of the matters where the complaint being M. Case No. 1 of 2015 is sought to be quashed.
4. In second group of the petitions, since one of the common grounds urged is that the FIR registered as M. Case No. 1 of 2015 is a second FIR for the same offence, for which the FIRs being I.C.R. No. 31 to 34 of 2013 are registered, the Court would consider the submissions of learned advocates appearing for the parties and reason its conclusion in the first group of matters first.
5. The petitions which fall in first group are Criminal Miscellaneous Application Nos. 2402 to 2403 of 2014, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 20928 of 2014, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 20945 of 2014, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 20947 of 2014, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 20446 of 2013, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 20449 of 2013, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 462 of 2014, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1217 of 2014, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 18388 of 2013, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 18389 of 2013, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 18390 of 2013, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 18391 of 2013, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 18690 of 2013 and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 18691 of 2013.
6. Criminal Miscellaneous Application Nos. 20446 of 2014 to Criminal Miscellaneous Application Nos. 20449 of 2014 are filed by the then President of the Trust seeking to quash FIR being I.C.R. Nos. 31, 32, 33 and 34 of 2013 respectively. Likewise, Criminal Miscellaneous Application Nos. 18388 of 2013 to Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 18391 of 2013 are filed by the then Secretary of the Trust seeking to quash FIR being I.C.R. No. 31, 32, 33 and 34 of 2013 respectively. The other petitions are filed seeking to quash FIR individually from the above said four different FIRs.
7. All the four FIRs are lodged by same person named Kasim Yunush Bham - the respondent No. 2 in above referred petitions. The gist of the allegations in FIR being I.C.R. No. 31 of 2013 is that the Surat Islamic Yatim Khana Society Trust is an old trust doing charity work of keeping Orphanage Home for about 225 to 250 children and the informant is the lifetime member and was also appointed as member of the fact finding committee called as Lavad Committee which was to inquire into financial irregularities, that on inquiry it was found that to misappropriate the funds of the trust by pre-planned conspiracy the President and officer bearers transferred huge funds of the trust in name of bogus persons by making false documents of sale for somebody's lands at Lajpor Village and caused financial loss to the trust and obtained personal financial gain.
8. The gist of the allegations in othe
Anju Chaudhary vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Arvindbhai Maganlal Master vs. State of Gujarat
Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Babu Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and Others
Chirra Shivraj vs. State of A.P. (2010) 14 SCC 444
C. Muniappan vs. State of T.N. (2010) 9 SCC 567
Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna vs. Peddi Ravindra Babu
Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad vs. K. Narayana Rao
Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma vs. State of Bihar
Jai Prakash Singh vs. State of Bihar & Another
Kishan Singh (Dead) through LRs. vs. Gurpal Singh
Manoj Kumar Sharma vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Mohan Baitha vs. State of Bihar
Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate
Rita Nag vs. State of West Bengal
Surender Kaushik vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
S.W. Palanitkar and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another
S.W. Palanikar vs. State of Bihar
T.T. Antoy and Others vs. State of Kerala and Others
SupremeToday
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.