IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 11992 of 2018 With R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 11883 of 2018 ==========================================================

VIRAL KIRANBHAI SHAH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR UMANG R VYAS(5595) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR.DHAWAN JAYSWAL APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Date : 03/01/2023 COMMON ORAL ORDER

1. By way of the present petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’), the Petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR bearing I-C.R.No.188 of 2018 registered with Sola High Court Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 405, 418, 466, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code as well as other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioners.

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr.Nirupam D. Nanavaty, Senior Counsel Mr.Prakash Jani, Advocate Mr.Yogesh N.Ravani, Advocate Mr.Hriday Buch, Advocate Mr.Umang R.Vyas, Advocate Mr.Brijesh K.Ramanaji for the petitioners and Mr.Dhawan Jayswal, learned APP, for the respondent State.

3. Senior Advocate Mr.Nanavaty submits that the petitioners are practicing Advocate of this Hon’ble Court and were panel Advocate of the Central Government are challenging the FIR being C.R.No.I- 188 of 2018 dated 23.06.2018 registered with Sola High Court, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 405, 418, 466, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.1 Senior Advocate Mr.Nanavaty submits that the complainant, who has alleged that Advocate Ankit S.Shah and Advocate Viral K.Shah, both Central Government Standing Counsel in connivance with each other have forged the signature of Secretary of NCMEI on the Vakalatnama and had tendered the same before the Hon’ble High Court and thereby committed alleged offences as narrated in the FIR.

3.2 Senior Advocate Mr.Nanavaty submits that essential ingredients of the alleged offence are not made out in the FIR and submitted that the complainant had filed one writ petition before this Court and had challenged the ‘Status’ of a school in which he was initially working as a Teacher. In the said writ petition being Special Civil Application No.20948 of 2016, in all there were four respondents. The said writ petition was presented on 08.12.2016, which was registered on 15.12.2016 and on different dates various orders were recorded. Senior Counsel Mr.Nanavaty further submitted that during pendency of the matter, the FIR came to be registered against the Advocate on 23.06.2018, while the Special Civil Application No.20948 of 2016 with Civil Application No.2 of 2018 came to be disposed of on 16.10.2018 and in that matter, the present petitioners had represented respondent No.1.

3.3 Senior Advocate Mr.Nanavaty submits that the complainant has falsely implicated the petitioners in the alleged FIR since no offence has been committed. The ingredients of Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code are not made out in the alleged FIR since the entire body of the FIR does not reflect any allegation about entrustment, even if the case of complainant who is present respondent No.2 is to be considered then the authority i.e. NCMEI has not suffered any wrongful loss, and therefore, there would not be any offence as alleged under Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.4 Senior Advocate Mr.Nanvaty submits that the Vakaltnama on which the signature is purported to have been forged is not a valuable security and no legal right is transferred or extended with the help of Vakalatnama. He further submits that the documents would not fall within the definition of ‘valuable security’ as requiring legal right to be created, extended, transferred etc., whe