JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Learned counsel for the respective respondents waive service. Considering the controversy involved in the matter, the same is taken up for final hearing today.

2. This criminal misc. application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) is filed seeking quash of the FIR being C.R. No. 11210015210232, registered with DCB Police Station, Surat City for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

3. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the second respondent, who is the de facto complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1 – State.

4. Prefatory facts germane to dispose of this application may briefly be stated as follow:

4.1 The de facto complainant, who is the second respondent herein has been running a business in selling and purchasing Prawns (sea food) along with supplements and Prawn Culture Medicine in the name and style BKP Aqua Culture Limited.

4.2 The accused No. 1 and the accused No. 3, who are the wife and the husband, are also doing business in the same field and they constituted a partnership firm in the name and style “Riddhi Siddhi Aqua Farm”. It is stated that the petitioner, who is hereto accused No. 2, is not a partner of the said firm of accused Nos. 1 and 3, however, by falsely representing that he is also a partner of the said firm by name Riddhi Siddhi Aqua Farm, he has entered into an MoU with the complainant for supply of raw-material worth Rs.4 crore. As per the said MoU, the petitioner who is accused No. 2, has to rear the Prawns and other sea food with raw-material supplied to him and then return the said reared Prawns and other sea food to the complainant. However, after rearing the said Prawns and other sea food, instead of returning the same to the complainant as per the said MoU, he sold away the said product to some third parties and did not even pay the money payable relating to the said sale to the complainant.

4.3 Therefore, it is stated that the petitioner has impersonated himself as a partner of the said firm by name Riddhi Siddhi Aqua Farm and fraudulently entered into the MoU with the de facto complainant by making false representation that he is the partner of the said firm and thereby, induced the de facto complainant to supply the said raw-material to him by false representation and thereafter, after rearing the Prawns and other sea food, he has sold away the same without returning the same to the de facto complainant and thereby, committed criminal breach of trust and cheating.

4.4 Narrating the above facts, the de facto complainant has initially lodged a report with the Umra Police Station, Surat stating that the petitioner has committed criminal breach of trust and cheating the de facto complainant. But, the Umra Police did not register the FIR on the basis of the said report and after conducting a preliminary inquiry, they refused to register the FIR stating that the facts of the case only show that there is a civil liability.

4.5 Thereafter, the de facto complainant has approached the Commissioner of Police, Surat. He entrusted the matter for investigation to the DCB Police Station, Surat. The said report was registered as FIR in DCB Police Station. Although, the investigation has been concluded, the police could not file the Charge-sheet as there was an interim direction from this Court not to file the Charge- sheet without prior permission of the Court.

4.6 During the pendency of the investigation, the present application was filed by the petitioner, who is the accused No. 2, seeking quash of the said FIR. The petitioner sought quash of the FIR on twin grounds that, i) the facts of the case on its face value show that there is only a civil liability and the facts of the case do not constitute any offence for which the FIR was registered and as such, allowing the criminal proceedings to be continued in the said facts