NEUTRAL CITATION

undefined

R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 12607 of 2021 ==========================================================

KAMESHBHAI NIRANJANBHAI SOPARIWALA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR RAVI N PAHWA(11493) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 MR L B DABHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Date : 05/04/2022

ORAL ORDER

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the closure report of the respondent No.3 and further prays for appropriate direction to the respondents to register the written complaint dated 16.12.2019 given by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is the power of attorney holder of Smt.Narmadaben Jayantilal Patel, who is proprietor of Robin Tex and Shri Kaushikkumar Jayantilal Patel, who is proprietor of Anmol Enterprise engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of art silk and gray garments since last 10 years. The petitioner came in contact with accused Nos.1 and 2 through the accused No.3, who is broker in cloth market. Accused No.3 introduced the accused Nos.1 and 2 as proprietors of Durga Fashions. Accused Nos.1 and 2 informed the petitioner that they are father and son and they are having shop/office/godown at Saroli, Surat and they are engaged in dyeing and printing works on gray garments and sarees and they purchase huge quantity of gray garments from market. The accused Nos.1 and 2 assured the petitioner that if the petitioner sells gray garments to accused Nos.1 and 2, the petitioner will earn huge profits and also assured of regular payments. Because of such assurances and promises, the petitioner in capacity of proprietor of Robin Tex and Anmol Enterprise, supplied huge quantity of gray garments total worth of Rs.35,87,300/- during the period between February, 2017 to March, 2017 and after supply of such product, the petitioner raised invoices vide Invoice No.79 to

110 and Invoice No.83 to 100 respectively.

2.1 As per the practice prevailing in cloth market, the accused assured the petitioner of making payment after 60 days of due period. The petitioner accordingly waited for due period however, the accused did not make any payment to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner contacted the accused and requested to make payment of the outstanding amount however, the accused kept on giving false assurance. Finally, the accused Nos.1 and 2 issued 8 cheques of different dates of their other partnership firm namely, Shree Balaji Textiles towards part payment of Rs.7,01,540/- however, the same were dishonored and even after so many requests, the accused did not make payment.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that it was obligatory on the part of the respondent authorities to register the complaint against the proposed accused as named in the written complaint given by the petitioner on 16.12.2019 In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Lalita Kumari Vs. state of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 S.C.C. 1 and State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani, (2017) 2 S.C.C. 779.

4. At this stage, it would be apposite to incorporate the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of M. Subramaniam v. S. Janki dated 20.03.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.102 of 2011. The Apex Court has observed thus;-

“5. While it is not possible to accept the contention of the appellants on the question of locus standi, we are inclined to accept the contention that the High Court could not have directed the registration of an FIR with a direction to the police to investigate and file the final report in view of the judgment of this Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others in which it has been inter alia held as under:

“11. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has

Click Here to Read the rest of this document