ORAL ORDER
1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’), the applicants have prayed to quash the first information report registered vide Ellisbridge Police Station I-C.R No. 55 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) as well as the chargesheet filed pursuant thereto and Criminal Case No. 4191 of 2006 arising out of the said first information report.
2. The facts of the case stated briefly are that the respondent No. 2 herein had lodged the above referred first information report against the applicants herein alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120(B) IPC. Upon culmination of the investigation, a chargesheet came to be laid against the present applicants, and the same is now registered as Criminal Case No. 4191 of 2006 and is pending in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 22, Ahmedabad. The applicants herein moved an application Exhibit 3 seeking discharge from the said offences. By an order dated 12th May 2009, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate partly allowed the application holding that no offence under Section 406 IPC is made out and, accordingly, acquitted the applicants qua the said offence. However, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was of the opinion that on the evidence on record, offences punishable under Sections 420 and 114 IPC are made out. The applicants carried the matter in revision before the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Ahmedabad, by way of Criminal Revision Application No. 258 of 2009. By an order dated 17 July 2009, the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Ahmedabad, rejected the said Revision Application. Being aggrieved, the applicants have moved the present application praying to quash the first information report, chargesheet as well as the Criminal Case pending against them.
3. Mr. Samir Dave, learned advocate for the applicants, has invited the attention of the Court to the High Seas Sale Agreement entered into between the respondent No. 2-Company and the Elementis Coke Pvt. Ltd., of which the applicants are directors. It is submitted that the said agreement is signed by only one of the Directors viz. the applicant No. 2 herein, despite which, the applicants No. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 have also been arraigned as accused in the first information report. Attention is also invited to the consent terms entered into between the parties as well as to the memo of Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 260 of 2006 filed by M/s. Elementis Coke Pvt. Ltd. for restoring the Civil Suit filed by the said Company. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, M/s. Elementis Coke Pvt. Ltd. was required to recover a sum of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Sixty Lakhs only) from the respondent No. 2-first informant and as such, no offence as alleged can be stated to have been made out against the applicants herein. Reliance is placed upon a decision of the Apex Court in S.V.L Murthy v. State represented by CBI, Hydearabad, (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 941, and more particularly to the contents of paragraphs 40 to 44 therein, to submit that the ingredients of Section 145 IPC are not attracted and as such, an offence under Section 420 IPC cannot be said to have been made out against the applicants.
4. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the applicants and has perused the record of the case. Insofar as the reliance placed upon the application for restoration of the Civil Suit is concerned, the contents thereof are in the nature of defence of the applicants and the same cannot be taken into consideration while considering the application for discharge. Insofar as the applicability of the provisions of Section 420 IPC is concerned, on the allegations made in the first information report it cannot be said that the ingredients of the said provision are not satisfied so as to call for intervention by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code. Besides, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in his order dated 12 May 2009 has recorded sufficient, cogent and convincing reasons for holding that the offences under Sections 420 and 114 are prima facie made out against the present applicants, and this Court finds no reason to take a different view so as to warrant any interference in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code.
5. In the result, the application fails and is, accordingly, summarily rejected.
Comments