Point of law: Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.

JUDGMENT :

1. By preferring this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has requested to quash and set aside the complaint being I-C.R.No.3 of 2012 registered with Ahmedabad City, DCB Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(b) of the IPC and consequential proceedings thereof.

2. The brief facts leading to this petition are as under :-

2.1 That, the accused persons gave false promise that if the complainant makes investment in the company, then they would get 11% to 17% interest every month and hence, relying on such talks, the complainant and his family members got induced and lured to open four accounts, wherein huge sums of money, as indicted in the complaint, were deposited. The complainant asked for the account statement and other details, which were not provided initially. Thereafter, three statements were received by post on 5.7.2011 which were having transactions which were not as per instructions of the complainant. Balance was not maintained, loss was shown and brokerage was debited. That, some amounts paid by Demand Drafts were deposited in the accounts of the co-accused Vipul Mishra and accounts of relatives of said accused Vipul Mishra. The applicant was initially called for inquiry for investigation and his statement was also recorded and ultimately, applicant came to be arrested on 3.2.2012.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sudarshan appearing for the applicant; learned advocate Mr. Dhruv K.Dave appearing for the respondent No.2 and learned APP Mr. H.K.Patel for the respondent No.1-State.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sudarshan appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint. That, the applicant is falsely roped in the FIR by the complainant with an ulterior motive to exert pressure on the applicant, and thereby, extort money from the Company in which, the applicant is working. That, the applicant has not induced the complainant and has not forged the signatures as stated in the FIR. That, the applicant nor any of the employees of the Company of the applicant has derived any monetary benefit from the alleged deeds and/or misdeeds of other accused persons. That, the complainant has done the transactions through the authorized person/s whose role would be similar to that of an agent or a sub-broker and the trading has been done by the said Authorized Person for and on behalf of the respondents. This trading so done by the authorized person apparently has caused a loss, and therefore, the FIR was filed. The complainant was aware of the actions and transaction done through such person which is not the applicant. That, the record of case would indicate that the regular transactions were apparently done under the instructions of the complainant and the complainant was aware of the same since margin money would have been debited or credited. That, the entire FIR is seen to be concocted with a malafide intention with no truth in the same solely with a dishonest purpose to avoid having to bear the loss and shift the burden of the loss suffered in their speculative trading on the Company of the applicant and satisfy the greed of the complainant. That, if the statement of account is perused, it would indicate that the complainant has not deposited/paid/remitted more than Rs.80.00 Lakhs in their trading account maintained with the applicant’s Company. That, for the complaint filed by the complainant himself before the MCX (Multi Commodity Exchange), it can be seen that the complainants’ version is apparently completely different. That, there is no material to remotely indicate that the applicant was involved in any wrong doing and or derived any illegal monetary benefit from the alleged act. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the applicant to allow this application by quash