JUDGMENT :

1. As both these applications arise out of the same F.I.R., the same are decided analogously.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.

3. The present applications have been filed seeking quashing of FIR registered at Harij Police Station, District Patan being C.R. No.I-90 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 507 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short).

4. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of Criminal Misc. Application No.19544 of 2015 are as under :-

4.1. The applicant is the owner/director of Jai Jalaram Ginning Factory, which is supplying cotton and cottonseeds, and respondent no.2 was partner. The Jai Jalaram Ginning Factory used to supply cotton to Rushi Cotex Private Limited for sale in market. The supply continued from 2008-09 to 2011-12. The account of Jai Jalaram Ginning Factory has been settled and paid when the payment of Rs.50,00,000/- were made by RTGS transaction on 22.06.2013.

4.2. There was three directors namely Shailesh Narendrabhai Pandya (accused no.3), Prakash Maneklal Mehta (present petitioner) and Meenaben J. Soni-wife of accused no.2 in the Rushi Cotex Private Limited, registered office of Rushi is situated at 46/47 Empire Tower, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad dealing in trading business of cotton since last 7-8 years.

4.3. It is the case of the applicant that Jai Jalaram Ginning Factory or any of its partners at any point of time has not given any loan to Rushi Cotex Private Limited. The complainant has not advanced any amount of loan much less Rs.1,75,00,000/- to Rushi Cotex Private Limited or any of its partners out of the loan taken from Dena Bank and frivolous complaint is filed by the complainant against the petitioner for the alleged transaction of 2011 in the year 2015.

5. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of Criminal Misc. Application No.19401 of 2015 are as under:

5.1. The petitioner no.1 is working as a Manager of a trading company viz., Rushi Cotex Private Limited, whereas petitioner no.2 is the director of the Rushi Cotex Private Limited.

5.2. It is the case of the petitioners that initially accused no.1-Prashantbhai Maneklal and respondent no.2-complainant were the partners in Jai Jalaram Ginning Factory. The said factory used to supply cotton to Rushi Cotex Private Limited and regular payments were also made by Rushi Cotex Private Limited to Jai Jalaram Ginning Factory. The account of Jai Jalaram Ginning Factory has been fully settled and paid when payments of Rs.50,00,000/- were made by RTGS transaction on 22.06.2013 to Jai Jalaram Ginning Factory.

6. Learned advocate Mr. R.D. Dave appearing for the applicants has submitted that the impugned F.I.R., which is not tenable in law and is false, frivolous, oppressive and vexatious against the applicants only with a view to extort money. He has also submitted that the applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No.19544 of 2015 had already resigned from the post of Director of Rushi Cotex Private Limited vide letter dated 30.06.2011 and the same had already been acknowledged. He has further submitted that even if the contents of the impugned F.I.R. are taken, the same would not satisfy the ingredients of Section 406, 420 and 507 of the IPC.

7. Learned advocate Mr. R.D. Dave for the applicants has submitted that the nature of dispute is civil and no criminal liability arose therefrom. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Joseph Salvaraj A. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in AIR 2011 SC 2258. He has further invited the attention of this Court to the agreement dated 01.03.2013, wherein it has been stated that the complainant has agreed to retire as partner from the partnership firm. He has submitted that at that time also the complainant did not raise any grievance about the alleged loan amount and the impugned F.I.R. filed after a delay of two years.

8. Vehemently opposing the submissions of the