ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

“14(A) Your Lordship may be pleased to Admit and Allow this Application and after perusing the said FIR at Annexure-A, being I CR No.36 of 2004 registered at Gandhinagar Zone Police Station, be pleased to pass an order for quashing the same as well as other proceedings instituted in pursuance of the said FIR in the interest of justice;

(B)……. (C)…...”

2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Dharmesh Shah for the applicant – original accused and Ms.Monali Bhatt learned APP for the respondent – State. Though served, none appears for respondent No.2

3. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the alleged offense. The applicant was a Director of the Company, but he resigned from the position on 30.03.2002. A copy of Form No.32, submitted by the Company, has been placed on record at page No.11. It is further submitted that the applicant was one of the Directors of the Company, and under the law, Directors are not personally liable for the debts or actions of the Company.

3.1. It is further submitted that the complaint filed under Section 406 of the Act, which pertains to criminal breach of trust, does not apply in the present FIR, as the transactions in question are purely civil in nature. Additionally, with regard to the complaint filed under Section 420, it is submitted that there is no dishonest intention involved, as the transaction was conducted in the name of the Company, and Directors are not personally liable.

3.2. It is further submitted that no case has been made out against the present applicant. Therefore, the applicant prays for quashing and setting aside of the complaint.

4. Per contra, learned APP Ms.Bhatt opposed the present application and contended that the complaint was filed under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and a case of cheating and criminal breach of trust has been made out against the applicant. It was further submitted that the FIR reveals the existence of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Company and the applicant. The allegations in the FIR clearly establish the offense committed by the present applicant. Hence, no case is made out for the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and therefore, the present application deserves to be dismissed.

5. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the material placed on record, it is an undisputed fact that, the applicant is a Director of the Company. Considering the submissions and averments made in the application, offence under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 is made out. It is needless to say that each and every case is required to be decided on different facts and merit.

6. To make out an offence of cheating, the cheating would allude from the transactions and crux of the matter is that, with malafide intention, the accused have taken wrongful gain and caused wrongful loss to the complainant. It is not necessary to reproduce all allegations as verbatim which satisfy all ingredients of offence in the body of the complaint. Here in the case, during investigation, sufficient material is collected and going through the said material and statement recorded during investigation, it discloses the commission of offence. 7. It is also worthwhile to refer to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra reported in

2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, it is observed and held as under:

“Even though, the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC, to interfere with criminal proceedings is wide, such power has to be exercised with circumspection, in exceptional cases. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC is not be exercised for the asking.”

8. In wake of aforesaid discussion, present petition fails and same i