CR.MA/12819/2007 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 12819 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI ========================================= === 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 ? ========================================= === NATVARBHAI BALUBHAI VALAND & ANOTHER Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANOTHER ========================================= === Appearance : MS PJ DAVAWALA for the Applicants MR LB DABHI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent No.1 MR BS PATEL for Respondent No. 2 ========================================= === CORAM : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 20/02/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.1, CR.MA/12819/2007 2/4 JUDGMENT State of Gujarat and Mr. B.S. Patel, learned advocate waives service notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.2. 2. Having regard to the facts of the case, with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing today. 3. By this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code), the applicants have prayed to quash the complaint being Criminal Case No.804/06 filed by the respondent No.2 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ankleshwar, which has been transferred to the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharuch. 4. The facts stated briefly are that the respondent No.2- Ankleshwar Nagrik Sahkari Bank Limited had lodged the above referred complaint through its recovery officer on 9th February, 2003. It is alleged in the complaint that the applicants with a view to cheat the bank, had availed loan from the Bank and had executed documents in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Bank. However, they had committed the illegal act of causing wrongful loss to the Bank to the tune of Rs.11,32,960/-. 5. It is the case of the applicants in the application that the Bank has already filed Lavad case in 1998 for recovery of the loan amount and thereafter, in the year 2003, after a lapse of nearly five years, the criminal complaint in question had been filed by the Bank. It is the case of the applicants that once civil remedy had already been resorted to by the respondent Bank in 1998, there was no reason for the Bank to lodge a criminal CR.MA/12819/2007 3/4 JUDGMENT complaint, that too after a period of five years. It is the say of the applicants that criminal proceedings have been initiated merely with a view to harass the applicants and to extort money from them by pressurizing them. 6. Ms P.J. Davawala, learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that the dispute in question is essentially a dispute in respect of which, Lavad case has already been instituted. However, after a lapse of nearly five years, a criminal complaint has been filed by the concerned Bank in an attempt to give a criminal colour to a purely civil matter. 7. The learned advocate for the applicants has advanced other submissions on the merits of the case while assailing the complaint in question. However, for the reasons stated hereinafter, it is not necessary to discuss the same in detail. 8. Mr. B.S. Patel, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 – Bank has stated on instructions before this Court that while reserving liberty to recover the Bank's dues by way of civil proceedings, the Bank has no objection if the complaint in question is quashed. 9. In the background of the facts noted hereinabove, it is an undisputed position that the complaint in question has been lodged after a period of five years. Besides, considering the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the applicants as well as in view of the concession made by the learned advocate for the respondent No.2- Bank, this Court is of the view that continuation of proceedings pursuant to the complaint in question would amount to an abuse of process of CR.MA/12819/2007 4/4 JUDGMENT Court. In the circumstances, the ends of justice would best be served if the complaint in question is quashed while reserving liberty for the Bank to take appropriate action in accordance with law for recovery in respect of any amounts due and payable by the applicants in civil proceedings. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. The complaint being being Criminal Case No.804/06 filed by the respondent No.2 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ankleshwar, which has been transferred to the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharuch, is hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (H.N.DEVANI, J.) shekhar/-