The court held that allegations in the FIR did not constitute a cognizable offence, allowing for quashing under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to prevent abuse of process.

ORDER :

(J.C. DOSHI, J.)

By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks to quash FIR registered before Kamrej Police Station being C.R. No. 11214020202285/2020 for the offences alleged to have been committed and punishable under sections 409, 420, 504, 506(2) and 114 of 1PC with Kamrej Police Station under the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure.

2. The short facts of the case emerging from the FIR are that org. accused no.2 Dineshbhai called on the cell phone of the complainant and informed him that he has one old customer being Mahi Creation who wants ultra satin cloth and he is in regular business with that party and asked to verify the same from the owner of Krishna Textile. It is further alleged that thereafter accused no.2 sent the details of order, payment condition and GST number of Mahi Creation via whatsapp and the complainant thereafter talked with Prakashbhai of Krishna Textile and he informed that he is in business with Mahi Creation for the last 25 years and the payment is made regularly after 25 days. It is further alleged that thereafter on 07.09.2020, 08.09.2020, 10.09.2020, 11.09.2020, 12.09.2020 and 14.09.2020, the complainant supplied ultra satin cloth worth Rs. 31,35,298/- to Mahi Creation as informed by accused no.2 from time to time on credit and at all the times, the cloth was sent in the tempo of one Gopalbhai who use to take the signature on the challan and E-way bills and pakka bills were also sent. It is further alleged that thereafter on the next day, the complainant informed accused no.2 for payment who informed that by 01.10.2020, the payment would be done by Mahi Creation. It is further alleged that thereafter time and again, the complainant visited the office of accused no.1 who is the owner of Mahi Creation in the month of October, 2020, however, the accused no.1 was unavailable at times for one reason or the other and thereafter, the accused no.2 was contacted who gave mobile number of accused no.1 and the complainant talked with accused no.1 who informed that the payment will be done in 2 days time and cheque would be issued, however, the same was not done and accused no.1 wiled up the time under false promises and the complainant thereafter went along with his brother and another person to the office of accused no.1 on 20.10.2020 and they met accused no.3 who was available there and again accused no.1 was not present and then, the brother of complainant asked accused no.3 to kindly talk with accused no.1 and make the payment and why the complainant is being harassed unnecessarily, to which, accused no.3 got furious and started threatening and hurling abusive language and the complainant left the place and thus, upon the aforesaid allegations, the complainant registered a police complaint.

3. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner taking this Court through the FIR would submit that it is purely commercial transaction between the parties whereby certain goods have been sold by the first informant to the accused and role of the petitioner is limited to the extent of introducing the main accused to whom the goods were sold with the promise that after 25 days amount shall be paid. Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that if the FIR is taken at face value, it does not constitute the offence against the petitioner and therefore he would submit to allow this petition by quashing and setting aside the FIR.

5. Learned APP while referring to the statement of one Darshanbhai Chauhan would submit that petitioner was impersonating himself as Mr.Jatin who was the purchaser of the goods and therefore it is submitted that since the petitioner played vital role in commission of the offence, this Court may not entertain the petition.

6. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the FIR in question what could be noticed that org. complainant sold the goods in the form of cloth through Dineshbhai Patel who