JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. RULE. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent – State.

2. The petitioners have challenged the Special Case Nos.11/2008 and 12/2008 before the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad which is under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13(1)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to in short as ‘the P.C. Act’) and and Sections 405, 409, 420, 34 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.1. The petitioners of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.11361/2017 are the erstwhile Directors of a Company in the name of Gujarat Steel Tubes Limited, which was engaged in the business of manufacturing of steel tubes in the State of Gujarat.

2.2. The petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.17699/2017 is one of the petitioners of the earlier referred matter who states that he is the erstwhile Director of Nika Tubes Limited, which is a sister concern of Gujarat Steel Tubes Limited.

3. It is contended, that both the Companies were facing various financial and operational issues and eventually after seeking opinion of the BIFR and AAIFR, it was ordered to be wound up by the order of this Court in Company Petitions No.7/2001 and 127/1995 respectively. The Liquidator thereafter, has taken control of the Company in terms of the Companies Act, 1956 and all other legal consequences have followed.

4. The petitioners state that in the year 2005, the complainant filed a series of complaints not only against the present petitioners but against various other companies and it is stated that the application of the complainant was accepted by the Special Court at Ahmedabad and ACB was directed to conduct an investigation into the allegations made into the complaint. The ACB authority submitted the Report before the Court on 02.05.2007 and 10.07.2007 which were ‘C’ Summary Report suggesting the closure of the complaint. It is further stated that against the closure, the complainant preferred Protest Petition in both the matters which came to be allowed and thereafter, Special Case No.11/2008 and 12/2008 were registered. The learned Judge issued process against the accused in the year 2008, the present petitioners did appear before the Court.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the registration of cases against the present petitioners, they have preferred the present petitions urging that there is no material particulars regarding corruption, allegedly committed by the petitioners and ingredients for invocation of the alleged offences are completely missing and none of the petitioners alleged as accused are public servants and therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. It is stated that the criminal prosecution against the petitioners is with a malafide intention and ulterior motive to wreck vengenance, the complainant has merely relied on the information available on the website of the Reserve Bank of India whereby the name of defaulters have been published and misusing the site information, the complainant has even filed similar complaints against various companies as a arm twisting tactic.

6. Learned Advocate Mr. Narendra L. Jain submitted that the same complainant had filed similar complaints against other companies and one such complaint was challenged in this Court and by way of an order dated 09.05.2019 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.4143/2008, the complaint was set aside considering that it was not maintainable as the petitioners were not the public servants and there were no ingredients against them for attracting offences under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Advocate Mr. Jain referred to the order dated 09.05.2013 in Criminal Miscellaneous Applications No.4143/2008, 4642/2008 and 4198/2008 to submit that all the complaints filed by the same complainant had been quashed by this Court. Mr. Jain submitted that the very complaint is not maintainable, since the petitioners are not public servants and th