ORAL ORDER

Rule. Learned advocates for the respective parties waives service of notice of rule for the respective respondents.

1. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Zubin F. Bharda for the petitioner, learned APP Ms.Divyangna Jhala for the respondent State and learned advocate Mr.Kishan Patel for the respondent No.2.

3. By way of this application under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”), the petitioner, has prayed to quash and set aside the complaint being Part-C C.R. No.11822004200766 of 2020 registered with Khergam Police Station, District : Navsari for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 411 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Brief facts of the case are as under :

The case of the petitioner is one of complete denial. It is undisputed that the petitioner is a registered contractor with DGVCL, having been awarded the contract for electrification work in the villages of Ronvel, Rankuva, Khergam, and Rumla Sub-Divisions. The petitioner has diligently carried out the electrification work and claims that a sum of ₹40,00,000/- is due and receivable from DGVCL for the work completed to date. It appears that the stock of material provided to him as a contractor is audited annually by the Audit Department of DGVCL, and everything has been found to be in order. However, the petitioner alleges that the FIR was lodged at the behest of other contractors, including the complainant, who wishes to secure the contract work executed successfully by the petitioner. The petitioner believes that the FIR was filed due to personal interests and interference from these competitors. The complainant’s FIR, if accepted in its entirety, reveals that material found in the scrap godown of scrap dealer Prakashbhai Chhitlabhai Patel was sold to him by several individuals: Rizwan, son of Niyamat Inayat Khan, resident of Village Agasi, Hanuman Faliya; Bhuperendra Amratbhai Gaekwad, resident of village Nadgadhri, Desai Faliya; one Vimalbhai; and Satishbhai Mohanbhai Deshmukh, resident of village Nadgadhri. The FIR further indicates that Bhuperendra Amratbhai Gaekwad, Vimalbhai, and Satishbhai Mohanbhai Deshmukh were working for contractors Shri Darshan Amaratbhai Gaekwad and Shri Subhashbhai J. Gaekwad (the petitioner). The petitioner denies any connection with these individuals or their involvement in the work for DGVCL. Furthermore, DGVCL did not issue any notice to the petitioner between 2017 and 2020 regarding any deficit in the material. The verification of freehold material also showed no irregularities.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a contractor in DGVCL. The allegations are that freehold material was found in the scrapyard of a scrap dealer. Referring to the panchnama dated August 26, 2020, it is submitted that, according to the said Rojnama, no such material was recovered. The material issued and used was in accordance with the supply, and there was nothing left to be added to the list. Despite this, an FIR was lodged on September 3, 2020. To demonstrate bona fides, the applicant has deposited the alleged amount of the goods, i.e., Rs. 2,50,000/-, while reserving the right to raise further contentions at an appropriate time. It is further submitted that, to clear the dues, Rs. 34 lakhs is owed from DGVCL to the applicant. The submission is that a false complaint has been lodged against him to prevent recovery of this amount. The advocate argues that no deficiency has been found and that, since the applicant successfully completed the work entrusted to him, no prosecution should be pursued.

6. Learned advocate for the applicant has also drawn the attention of this Court that during the enquiry also and subsequently the PGVCL has not found any loss of material or any shortfall. The supplied m