ORDER :

1. The present application is filed for seeking following reliefs:

“[A] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow this Criminal Misc. Application;

[B] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quash. and set aside the impugned FIR being C.R.No.I- 87 of 2016 registered before the Vastrapur Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable under section 406, 420, 114 of Indian herein. Penal Code against the petitioners

[C] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the entire proceedings in relation to the impugned FIR lodged at Vastrapur Police Station, Ahmedabad City being C.R.NO.I-87 of 2016 against the present petitioners herein or not to take coercive steps against the present petitioners in the interest of justice.

[D] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to pass such other and further relief that may be deemed fit, just and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. Brief facts as per the case of the applicants in this application are as such that it appears that the present application has been filed to challenge the FIR, which is registered for offenses punishable under Sections 406, 420, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations state that the applicants were engaged in the activity of collecting money from the complainant, purportedly to facilitate admission to medical colleges in another state. The complainant paid a substantial amount to the applicants through cheques, bank transfers, and cash. However, the applicants failed to respond to the complainant's inquiries and ignored their phone calls. Upon further investigation, it was discovered that no admissions were arranged in any medical college as promised. Consequently, the complaint was lodged.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Harshadkumar Panchal for the applicants, learned advocate Mr Rajesh H. Sahjani for the respondent No.2 and learned APP Mr. Dhawan Jayswal for the respondent No.1 – State.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Harshadkumar Panchal has argued that based on the content of the FIR, it is evident that the applicants may have made some default, but there is no intention on their part to be considered as culprits under the law. He suggests that certain circumstances beyond the control of the applicants may have led to the situation. He further argues that applicant No. 2, being a lady, would face greater hardship if the proceedings resulting from the complaint are pursued. He highlights an affidavit filed by the complainant, in which it is stated that the complainant received the cheques, demand draft, and cash, and has given consent for the quashing of the same. This is brought to my attention as supporting evidence for the request to quash the proceedings. However, for reasons known only to the complainant, they filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 7979 of 2017 to vacate interim relief, claiming that the cheques provided by the applicants bounced and were not honored. Mr. Harshadkumar Panchal draws attention to the applicants' affidavit-in-reply filed in response to that application, arguing that the applicants had no intention to dishonor the cheques, and now the complainant is taking undue advantage of the situation. He further states that the applicants have already repaid all dues to other individuals who encountered similar issues, and they are willing to settle the dispute with the complainant. Additionally, he points out that although the bounced cheque incident occurred 6 to 7 years ago, the complainant did not initiate separate proceedings concerning that cheque. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the lack of criminality attributable to the applicants, Mr. Harshadkumar Panchal requests that the present application may be allowed.

6.1 Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Rajesh H. Sahjani, for the respondent No.2 has strongly opposeed the prayers made by the applicants. He has submitted that initially, the complainant filed the affidavit stating that the amount was received through a demand draft. However, he f