B.N. Karia, J.

This application has been filed by the applicants/original accused under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity "CrPC") praying to quash and set side the complaint, being C.R. No. I-63 of 2013 registered with Nadiad Town Police Station, Nadiad for an offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 255, 260, 406, 418, 423, 465, 467, 468, 471, 475 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Brief facts of the impugned complaint are that in the year 2009-10, the daughter of the complaint when was studying with daughter of the accused no.1 and because of that the accused and the complainant came in contact with each other and they increased their family relation as well as they created relation with father-in-law of the complainant and in the month of April 2010, the accused persons came to the house of the complainant, when his father-in-law was present and stated that they have filled in a tender regarding photo ration card for Nadiad and Anand Districts and in this regard, they are in need of Rs. 65,00,000/- and accused no.1 gave lure about getting huge benefit thereon and by keeping trust upon the accused persons, complainant gave an amount of Rs. 65,00,000/- by way of cheque and cash and by stating the said fact, they once again got Rs. 30,00,000/- and also got Rs. 7,00,000/- from relative of the complainant and while asking about receipt of payment by them before the Collector office at that time, they gave original receipt dated 25.05.2010 having seal and signature of District Election Officer and Collector, Kheda and gave assurance that such amount has been deposited before the office and they have started work upon it.

2.1 Thereafter, accused no.1 was arraigned in a case of creating bogus documents of the office of the Collector for getting loan from Oriental Bank of Commerce and he was sent to judicial custody, and therefore, the accused no.2 and his henchmen Bhaumikbhai met the complainant to get Rs. 4,00,000/- for taking out accused no.1 from judicial custody and stated that whenever accused no.1 will come outside then they will pay such amount and beyond that the complainant had paid Rs. 4,00,000/- more for initiating bail proceeding for release of the accused no.1 from jail. Thereafter, when accused no.1 was released on bail, at that time, complainant demanded back his money and therefore, they issued five cheques of various dates, but while depositing such cheques in the bank, all these cheques returned with an endorsement 'account is closed'. While making inquiry about tender allotted to him, the complainant found that no tender has been granted in their favour and they have created false receipts under the seal and signature of District Election Officer and Collector Kheda and thereby the accused persons have committed offence of cheating by creating false document and signature etc, and that is how the impugned complaint has been lodged against the present applicants.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nirav C. Thakkar appearing on behalf of the applicants and learned APP Mr. KL Pandya appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1. Though, served, none remained present on behalf of the respondent no.2.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Nirav C. Thakkar appearing on behalf of the applicants has stated that the complaint is bogus, concocted and afterthought and none of the ingredients of offence alleged therein are made out. That, the complainant has lodged more than one complaint for an incident that has admittedly taken place between April 2010 to 26.06.2011 and no satisfactory explanation is given for delay in lodging the impugned complaint. That, the complainant has not disclosed lodging of first complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad while lodging the subsequent FIR. Various other important facts are also not stated by the respondent no.2 while getting registered the impugned FIR. That, the impugned FIR has been lodged even while the competent Criminal Court was already ceased of