The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash criminal proceedings if it deems it necessary to secure the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the process of law.

ORDER :

1. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, this matter is taken up for final hearing.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent-State and learned advocate Mr. Nishit Patel for learned advocate Mr. Anvit Mehta waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent No. 2.

3. By way of this application preferred under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, present applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside the FIR being I-C.R. No. 171 of 2002 dated 02.05.2002 registered with Madhavpura Police Station, District Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 34, 114 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Tejas Satta appearing for the applicants, learned advocate Mr. Nishit Patel for the respondent No. 2 and learned APP Ms. Maithili Mehta appearing for the respondent-State.

5. Present applicants are the partners of the said firm i.e. M/s. Vaishali Industries and therefore, in their capacity as partner, the FIR was registered against the present applicants and others.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Tejas Satta appearing for the applicants draws attention of this Court to the order dated 26.06.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 30759 of 2017 whereby the co-ordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to quash and set aside the complaint qua other partner namely Bharatbhai Vasudevbhai Patel.

7. Today, learned advocate Mr. Tejas Satta submits that the entire dues of the Bank are repaid and no due certificate is also issued by the respondent No. 2 namely Bhagyodya Co-operative Bank. He states that in view of the fact that the complaint has already been quashed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in respect of one of the partners, who was also named in the said FIR and since the applicants also being a partner and in light of the no due certificate having been given by the Bank, the complaint qua present applicants also be quashed.

8. Today, learned advocate Mr. Nishit Patel for learned advocate Mr. Anvit Mehta has appeared for the respondent No. 2 namely Bhagyodya Co-operative Bank and sought permission to permit Mr. Mehta to file his Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent No. 2- Bhagyodya Co-operative Bank. Permission, as prayed for, is granted.

9. Today, Officer of the Bank namely Dharmendra Rasiklal Vyas is present before the Court and he has been identified by learned advocate Mr. Nishit Patel. Upon inquiry from the Court, said officer who is working with the Bank as Officer “A” accepts before the Court that now there are no dues outstanding from the Vaisahali Industries or any of its partners, and therefore, no due certificate is duly issued to Vaishali Industries and hence, he does not have any objection if the present complaint is quashed in view of the fact that Bank has repaid by the Vaishali Industries and its partners.

10. Learned APP Ms. Mehta also confirms the aspect as even the statement a similar line was recovered by the Investigating Officer. She places on record a report dated 13.06.2022 prepared by P.S.I. Madhavpura Police Station, Ahmedabad, which is taken on record.

11. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances arising out of the present case as well as taking into consideration the decisions rendered in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582, Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, 2009 (1) GLH 31, Manoj Sharma vs. State and Others, 2009 (1) GLH 190 and Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, it appears that further continuation of criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned FIR against the applicant would be unnecessary harassment to the applicant. It appears that the trial would be futile and further continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned F