Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/5504/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 5504 of 2010
=========================================
GANPATBHAI
BALDEVBHAI PATEL - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
MR AG JOSHI
for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR
M.R. MENGDEY, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 30/11/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Present
application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code has been
preferred by the applicant – original accused to quash the
complaint/FIR being C.R. No.I-99/2005 registered with Bharuch City
‘A’ Division Police Station, Bharuch as well as the charge-sheet
filed against the applicant for the offences punishable under
Sections 406, 420, 465, 468 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal
Code.
2. Shri
Joshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has
vehemently submitted that as the applicant has not committed any
offence as alleged and that as the main accused Prakash Parmar is his
neighbour, the amount in question was collected at his
home/residence. It is submitted that even the victims were the
relatives of the applicant and therefore, the amount was collected at
his residence. Therefore, it is requested to quash the impugned
complaint/FIR and the charge-sheet.
3. Having
heard Shri Joshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
applicant and considering the charge-sheet and role attributed to the
applicant, it appears that there was a big scam and a total sum of
Rs.13,75,000/- was recovered from various persons who were in need of
job and they were assured that they will be offered job in Railway
Department. It also appears that amount in question was recovered
from the respective victims at the residence of the applicant and
therefore, prima facie, the
applicant can be said to be part of the larger conspiracy. From the
role attributed to the applicant and the charge-sheet filed after
investigation, there is no question of quashing the complaint/FIR and
the charge-sheet without trial. It is also required to be noted that
as such the other co-accused – main accused are absconding
since long though the alleged incident has taken place in the year
2005.
4. In
view of the above and for the reasons stated above, no extra-ordinary
case is made out to quash the impugned complaint/FIR and the
charge-sheet. Hence, present application deserves to be dismissed
and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(M.R.
Shah, J.)
*menon
Top