A writ petition for quashing the order of a Magistrate directing inquiry is subject to the discretionary nature of Article 226 relief, especially when delay in action is evident.

JUDGEMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1821 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA ========================================= = 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================= = RAMDEV FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED - Applicant(s) Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s) ========================================= = Appearance : MR CHETAN K PANDYA for Applicant(s) : 1, MR SS PATEL, A.P.P. for Respondent(s) : 1, ================================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA Date : 17/02/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has, by this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, made a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order for quashing and setting aside the order dated 16.08.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sanand directing the 2/11 JUDGMENT Police Sub Inspector of Sanand to inquire U/S.202 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , into the complaint lodged by the petitioner against fourteen accused named therein for alleged commission of offences U/S.409, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 r/w. Sec.120-B and 114 of Indian Penal Code and submit report to the Court within 30 days and has further prayed the Court to direct the Police Sub Inspector, Sanand Police Station to investigate U/S.156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in brief 'Code').

2. The facts of the case emerging from the record are that the petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sanand against fourteen accused named therein for the offences alleged to have been committed U/Ss.419 420, 460, 467, 468, 471 r/w. Secs. 120(B), 34 and 114 of Indian Penal Code interalia on the ground that the petitioner had permitted one M/s. New Ramdev Masala Factory wherein accused no.1 Mr. Jasvantbhai Somabhai Patel was one of the partners to use the trademark “Ramdev” for a period of seven years pursuant to user agreement dated 4.6.1990, but the factory of M/s. New Ramdev Masala was closed from 30.05.1994 which is clear from the affidavit filed before Sales Tax Department and the Income 3/11 JUDGMENT Tax Returns and thus, there was no business in the name and style of M/s. New Ramdev Masala Factory. According to the petitioner, the accused no.1 joined the petitioner company as General Manager and borrowed some amounts for his personal use from the company and gave eight cheques against the repayment of the said amount but the cheques were dishonoured when presented for encashment and therefore, complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act were filed as well as a civil suit was also filed for the recovery of outstanding amount. It is averred in the complaint that in the civil proceedings, the Court granted conditional leave to defend the suit to the accused no.1 which order was challenged before this Court which was confirmed and Letters Patent Appeal, filed against the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court was also dismissed. As per the complaint, the accused no.1 had execute