JUDGMENT

1. The present application is filed for quashing of the F.I.R. being C. R. No.11191015200043 of 2020 registered at Nikol Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the IPC and Sections 5, 33(3) and 42 of the Money Laundering Act.

2. As per the allegations made in the F.I.R., which was registered on 11.01.2022, 3 accused, who are named in the F.I.R., out of which accused No.1 – Dhirubhai died on 02.08.2023. Therefore, the proceedings qua accused No.1 stands abated.

3. So far as accused No.2, who is the applicant before this Court, is concerned, he is the son of accused No.1 and on referring to the recitals of the F.I.R., it emerges that the transaction which was carried out with Dhirubhai was regarding lending of money, against which cheques were issued and as per the allegations, despite payment of the amount borrowed is made, the cheques were not returned by Dhirubhai and one cheque was deposited in the account, which was dishonoured and a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed. Another cheque was handed over to one Savjibhai – accused No. 3, who also deposited in the account and on being dishonoured, a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was filed.

4. Heard the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mitesh Amin with the learned advocate Mr. Pratik Y Jasani for the applicants, learned advocate Ms. Gayatriba B. Jadeja for the respondent No.2 and learned APP Ms. Varunda Shah for the State.

5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Amin has submitted that previously, a suit under the Specific Relief Act was filed by the family of accused No.1 against the complainant on 24.06.2019, where an application under Order 7 Rule 11 came to be filed by the complainant herein, which came to be rejected on 20.10.2019. It is further submitted by learned advocate Mr. Amin that an injunction application below Exh.5 came to be filed by the family of accused No.1, which came to be allowed.

5.1 It is submitted by learned Senior advocate Mr. Amin that after all these proceedings, the F.I.R. which was lodged on 11.01.2020 without referring to any of the above aspects, the complainant has alleged that cheques which were handed over as security at the time of borrowing the amount were misused by accused Nos.1 and 2 in connivance with accused No.3. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Amin that the reply to the notice which was given by the complainant to the accused No.3, suggesting that there is some account dispute with accused No.1 – Dhirubhai, who died during the pendency of the investigation and there was no allegation against accused No.2, who is the son of Dhirubhai. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Amin that even if the allegations made in the F.I.R. would be considered on their face value, it does not disclose any cognizable offence and with a view to create a defence in the proceedings which are filed under the N.I. Act, the impugned F.I.R. is filed.

5.2 It is submitted by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Amin that as accused No.1 has died and no role assigned in the F.I.R. disclosing the cognizable offence, the continuation of the F.I.R. would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law and in that background, it is prayed to quash and set aside the F.I.R. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Amin that, as per the settled position of law, the offences under Sections 406 and 420 cannot co-exist simultaneously and in that background also, the continuation of the F.I.R. is nothing but harassment.

6. Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Jadeja for the complainant submits that accused No.2, who is the applicant herein, was taking care of the management of the business of accused No.1 - Dhirubhai and in that background, the investigation is required to be concluded. At this stage, the application for quashing filed by the applicant would be premature.

7. Learned APP Ms. Shah for the State has supported the arguments of the learn