JUDGMENT :

M. K. THAKKER, J.

1. The present application is filed for quashment of the FIR being I-CR No.54 of 2013 registered with Keshod Police Station.

2. As per the allegations of the complainant namely Rajendrabhai S/o Tribhuvandas Gondhiya who is the partner of unregistered firm being Raj Cinema having three other partners namely Tribhuvandas Anandji Gondhiya, Nirmalaben Tribhuvandas Gondhiya and Jayesh Tribhuvandas Gondhiya. The complainant and the partners wanted to cancel the license of Raj Cinema and to develop the property. For the said purpose, the complainant was in need of money and has approached to the accused no.1, who was an advocate but practicing in money lending business, without license. The complainant conveyed his desire to get the finance and it was conveyed by the accused no.1 that he would lend amount of Rs.8,00,000/- out of which first Rs.6,00,000/- was given and thereafter, Rs.2,00,000/- was given and when Rs.6,00,000/- was lent the complainant has executed Satakhat on 07.12.2011. At the time of lending amount of Rs.2,00,000/- the accused no.1 had taken original documents in the month of February, 2012. It was subsequently conveyed that the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was given as an investment, as the accused no.1 wanted to invest in the partnership firm of the complainant. It was conveyed that at present he gave amount of Rs.8,00,000/- and on cancellation of license of Raj Cinema, he would further invest the amount. It was further conveyed that only for security purpose this Satakhat is executed.

2.1. The license of Raj Cinema came to be canceled on 31.03.2012 and it was conveyed to the accused no.1 to invest further amount and to be the partner of the firm. The accused no.1 has informed that he does not wish to being partner of the partnership firm therefore, the complainant has conveyed that whatever amount he invested be taken back so that he could search for another partner who would invest be amount. The said aspect was conveyed in the month of August, 2012 and accused no.1 has informed that as now the amount is to be paid of Rs.21,00,000/- as same would be having interest on the amount which was borrowed of Rs.8,00,000/-. It is further conveyed by the complainant that he does not have that much amount and thereafter the accused no.1 conveyed to the complainant to meet with accused no.4 and whatever amount the accused no.1 and 2 would say he may give cheque so that transaction with the accused no.1 with regard to principal amount with interest would be calculated. The complainant was in need of original documents therefore he gave the 2 cheques of Rs.8,00,000/- to accused no. 2 and 2 cheques of Rs.8,00,000/- to accused no.3, who are brothers. It is conveyed to the complainant that accused no.4 has to execute the agreement with regard to three flats which now would be executed with the complainant which was also not done therefore, the complainant has demanded cheque which was taken by the accused no.2 and 3 which was denied and the complainant was threatened to face dire consequences. It is conveyed that the accused no. 4 and 5 have taken the signature on the promissory notes as well as signature on the different documents. It is further alleged in the complaint that one advertisement was published in the Sandesh Newspaper on 28.02.2013 through advocate Mr.K.B.Singhvi wherein on the basis of bogus Power of Attorney the page no.2 was changed, 1/4th share was transferred to accused no.3 who is the mother of the accused no.1 and 2. With above allegations, the impugned FIR is lodged, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Ashish Dagli for the applicants no.1, 2 and 3 as well as the learned advocate Mr.Dipal Ravaiya for the complainant-respondent no.2 and learned APP Mr.Ronak Raval for the respondent-State.

3.1. It is submitted advocate Mr.Ashish Dagli that on bare reading of the FIR, it is clear that no role is attributed to the present applicant who are ar