1. The present writ application has been filed seeking quashing of the F.I.R. registered at Navrangpura Police Station, District Ahmedabad, being C.R. No.I-40/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short).

2. The brief facts of the case leading to filling of the present application are as under :

2.1. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant is a citizen of India, but he is residing in Thailand since past two decades and more. The applicant is having his well established business in Thailand and he is a national of Thailand. The applicant was possessing a Hotel in Bangkok, viz. Erawan Hotel located in Thailand. It is also the case of the applicant that respondent No.2 herein was interested in purchasing the said hotel belonged to the applicant and accordingly, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was executed between the parties i.e. the respondent No.2 and the applicant at Bangkok, Thailand. When the respondent No.2 defaulted in making timely payment, the applicant, as per the covenants of the MoU forfeited the amount deposited by the respondent No.2 and sold his hotel to another buyer at lower consideration and sustained loss.

2.2. On the other hand, despite being defaulted in making timely payment, the respondent No.2 preferred a suit before the trial court at Thailand demanding the amount so deposited by him with the applicant pursuant to the MoU dated 12.08.2010. Thereafter, the trial court of Thailand decreed the suit in favour of respondent No.2, which was challenged by the applicant before the Appellate Court at Thailand. The Appellate Court allowed the Appeal filed by the applicant and the same was challenged by the respondent No.2 before the Supreme Court of Thailand. The Supreme Court of Thailand vide order dated 05.06.2015 was pleased to dismiss the Appeal, which was filed by the respondent No.2, confirming the order passed by the Appellate Court, Thailand, wherein it has been observed that there is no requirement to refund the amount to the respondent No.2 considering the fact that on account of default committed by the respondent No.2, the applicant had to sustain loss. It is alleged by the applicant that the issue of claiming refund of the forfeited amount pursuant to the MoU dated 12.08.2010 was ultimately in favour of him. However, respondent No.2 filed a frivolous F.I.R. against the applicant at Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad, Gujarat (India), being C.R.No.I-03/2016, wherein it has been alleged by respondent No.2 that the applicant fraudulently pocketed money, which was paid by him pursuant to the MoU. It is alleged by the applicant that the respondent No.2 based his claim on the premise of non-supply of some of the documents to him by the applicant. It is also alleged by the applicant that the respondent No.2 conveniently suppressed the aspect of long drawn civil dispute amongst them at Thailand arising out of the very same MoU and ultimate decision rendered therein in favour of him pursuant to the order passed by the Supreme Court, Thailand.

2.3. It is the further case of the applicant that pursuant to the F.I.R., which was lodged by the respondent No.2, a look-out corner notice was issued against the applicant and he was arrested by the police at Chennai Airport in India and thereafter, the applicant had filed bail application being Criminal Misc. Application No.1613 of 2016 before the City Civil & Sessions court, Ahmedabad, which was allowed and the applicant was enlarged on regular bail. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 had preferred Criminal Misc. Application No.1810 of 2016 seeking modification of the conditions of the order passed by the Sessions Court while granting regular bail to the applicant, which was dismissed by the Sessions Court vide order dated 06.05.2016.

3. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.V. Raju appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant also preferred a petition before