Court quashed FIR as allegations did not establish criminal breach of trust or cheating; petitioner acted within contractual duties.

ORDER :

J. C. DOSHI, J.

1. In paragraph 18 of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:–

“A) Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate order or direction quashing impugned FIR being I-CR No.124 of 2017 registered with Mehsana "B" Division Police Station qua the present Petitioner;

B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay further proceedings of impugned FIR being I-CR No.124 of 2017 registered with Mehsana "B" Division Police Station qua the present Petitioner and be further pleased to restrain I.O., Mehsana "B" Division Police Station from acting in furteance of the said impugned FIR being I-CR No.124 of 2017 registered with Mehsana "B" Division Police Station or taking any coercive measures against the Petitioner;”

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

2.1. Shorn of non-essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the lis in hand is adumbrated thus: The Petitioner, at the relevant time, was serving as the Location Manager at Mehsana Branch of Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. The Respondent No.2 had approached the said branch seeking financial assistance for purchase of an Ashok Leyland truck costing Rs.22,54,286/-, for which a loan of Rs.19,70,000/- was sanctioned. Upon default in payment of EMIs, the vehicle came to be repossessed by the Company on 05.01.2016 through Gokul Motors Pvt. Ltd. Subsequently, on 21.01.2016, the Respondent No.2 cleared part dues of Rs.3,14,200/- towards outstanding EMIs, whereafter the Petitioner sought approval from the State Head for release of the repossessed vehicle, which was accordingly handed over to the Respondent No.2’s driver, Hitendrakumar Raval, after due verification and issuance of a release order.

2.2. It is the Petitioner’s case that despite the release of the vehicle, the Respondent No.2 continued to default in repayment and issued two cheques which were dishonoured for the reason “drawer’s signature differ.” Consequently, statutory notices under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were issued, and criminal complaints came to be filed by the Company before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. The Respondent No.2, while seeking to drop the said proceedings under Section 258 CrPC, made inconsistent averments acknowledging repossession of the vehicle on 05.01.2016. The said applications were rejected by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 15.02.2017.

2.3. The Petitioner further asserts that the Respondent No.2 had illegally sold the financed vehicle to a third party without the Company’s consent, which subsequently came to be used for transporting contraband liquor, as revealed from a notice received from Barava Police Station, Haryana. To save his own skin and to harass the Petitioner, the Respondent No.2 lodged the impugned FIR being I-CR No.124 of 2017 registered with Mehsana “B” Division Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420 and 114 IPC, making false and concocted allegations of cheating and breach of trust. Hence, the present petition.

3.1. Learned advocate Ms. Rhea Chokshi appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned FIR being I-CR No.124 of 2017 registered with Mehsana “B” Division Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420 and 114 of the IPC is ex-facie false, frivolous, and a sheer abuse of the process of law. It is contended that the Petitioner, at the relevant time, was merely discharging his official duties as Location Manager of Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd., and had no personal role, much less any dishonest intention, in the transaction in question. The allegations made in the FIR are wholly civil and contractual in nature, arising from a loan-cum-f