The court maintained that an FIR must not be quashed at an initial stage unless no prima facie case is established, even if the allegations suggest civil nature.

ORDER :

J.C. DOSHI, J.

1. Heard learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, learned advocate for the private respondent, and learned APP appearing for the respondent–State.

2. Petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

“A). That the Hon'ble court may be pleased to admit this Criminal Misc. Application.

B). That this Hon'ble court may be pleased to allow this present Criminal Misc. Application by quashing and setting aside the F.I.R filed at Annexure A as FIR No. 11214031212402 of 2021 registered before Mahuva Police Station, SURAT rural and also be please to quash further proceedings arising out of the same in the interest of justice.

C). Pending admission, hearing and till final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble court may pleased to grant stay as to further proceedings of F.I.R filed by respondent no 2 as FIR No. 11214031212402 of 2021 registered before Mahuva Police Station, SURAT rural in the interest of justice.”

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is that in the year 1997-98, he along with one Lalinbhai Gokulbhai Bhakta embarked upon a joint venture in the gas business and, in due course, incorporated four companies, two of which—namely H & L Gas Private Limited and Bardoli Actelion Private Limited, Tarsadi— had the complainant, his wife Prashaben, and one Sukhvinderkour as shareholders and directors. The complainant claims to have managed the entire administration of all four companies. Upon the demise of Lalinbhai in 2014, his wife Hanshaben, son Ankilbhai, and daughter Hemaliben entered the management as directors. According to the complainant, having little knowledge of the business, they collectively decided to sell the companies, whereupon two Memoranda of Understanding were executed on 04.02.2016 and 18.07.2016, fixing the valuation of properties and commission for the complainant. It is alleged that Ankilbhai, in collusion with his mother and sister, breached the terms of the MoUs, forged signatures on resignation letters dated 02.06.2008, and clandestinely transferred H & L Gas Private Limited without the knowledge or consent of the complainant and other directors, thereby misappropriating an amount to the tune of three to four crores. The complainant further alleges that threats were extended to him on 19.08.2021 by security personnel, leading to the lodging of the present FIR.

3.1. The case of the petitioner, however, is one of complete innocence. It is contended that even if the allegations in the FIR are taken at face value, no ingredients to attract Sections 465, 468, 471, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code are disclosed against him, inasmuch as he had no role in the alleged transactions. The petitioner asserts that the primary dispute is essentially inter se between the complainant and the family members of late Lalinbhai concerning management and ownership of the companies. It is his case that he had merely acted in the capacity of a broker, without indulging in any forgery, cheating, or misappropriation, and that his implication is unwarranted and amounts to abuse of process of law.

4. It has been contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner has had no role to play in the commission of the alleged offences. The very initiation of the FIR against him, it is urged, constitutes a gross abuse of the process of law. It is further submitted that the petitioner has neither cheated the complainant nor been instrumental in preparing any forged or fabricated document. According to the petitioner, his role, if any, is confined to that of an intermediary or middleman, and he is not a signatory to the disputed docu