Point of Law: Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. Quashing of a complaint should rather be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. Considering the allegations made in the complaint against the present petitioners without recording evidence and completing the investigation by the Investigating Agency, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by this Court.

JUDGMENT :

1. In these group of petitions, two different complaints are lodged against the petitioners and identical question of law and facts are involved in all these four petitions. Joint request was made by learned advocates appearing for the respective parties to decide all these four matters by passing common judgment and order. It is requested to consider Criminal Misc. Application No. 10581/2009 as a lead matter.

2. Factual matrix of the petition may be summarized as under:

2.1 One FIR was filed and registered vide C.R. No.I-64 of 2009 with Kamalabaug Police Station, Porbandar under Sections 420, 406, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC” for short) against 9 accused as shown in the FIR. As per this FIR given by the respondent No.2 on 31.05.2009, he has alleged that the offence was taken place from 11.03.2008 till the date of registering the FIR. Another FIR was filed i.e. Criminal Complaint No.I–116/2009 with the City Police Station, Surendranagar for the offence punishable under Section 406, 420, 114 and 120(B) of the IPC against three accused persons. That the allegations made by the respondent No.2 viz. Parth Prakashbhai Joshi, original complainant in his complaint filed before the Kamlabaug Police Station, Porbandar, that all the accused used to give lucrative advertisement in the newspaper for giving agencies and accused No.1 i.e. Jayanta Kalol Roy having his office at Satellite and one Manojitkumar, another accused had come to him informing that they want to start an office at Porbandar and had made lucrative offers of giving confidence and trust. It was alleged that Rs.11,000/- cash were given to said Jayanta Kalol Roy by him. It is further alleged in the complaint that after getting agency of the company, informant purchased the premises in Kuber Vintage building and for the purpose of establishing a modern training center, skilled persons of the company came and as per the norms of the company and advertisement, company was giving 100% job guarantee, and therefore, to get franchisee of the said company, the complainant, on 11.03.2008, issued a draft of Rs.5,00,000/- and thereafter, on 16.04.2008, issued three different cheques of total amount of Rs.10,00,000/-, and thereafter, on 09.06.2008 gave another cheque of Rs.2,00,000/-. When accused No.1 viz. Jayanta Kalol Roy had come to Porbandar, another cheque of Rs.3,00,000/- was given to him and in all, the complainant paid Rs.20,00,000/- to accused No.1. As per the agreement agreed between them, complainant started admission of students and received fees from them. As alleged, complainant was sending 70% fees to the company and 30% fees was retained by him. After imparting the training to the students, no job was offered to any of the students and when the accused was questioned, complainant received bad replies. As alleged in the complaint, the students were not getting their job as promised by the accused No.1, they demanded their fees back, and therefore, the complainant repaid Rs.6,30,000/- and when he asked for his money from the company, no reply was received nor any money. He was threatened by the accused persons that if he would demand any money, he would be killed, and therefore, he filed a complaint against the accused persons.

3. As per the facts of the second complaint lodged with the City Police Station, Surendranagar being FIR No.I-116 of 2009, in the year 2007, the complainant came across an advertisement in the newspaper about an Advantage Global India Ltd. pursuant to which, he contacted the Director of the Company namely Jayanta Kalol Roy (accused No.1) and after discussing with him, he was awarded the franchisee for Surendranagar in the name of his wife Ms. Pritiben Popat. The respondent No.2 started functioning and only a few of his students were provided jobs, and thereafter, trainers appointed by t