Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/8992/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 8992 of 2010
=========================================================
ALLWYN
SAMUEL CHRISTIAN - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS.KHUSHBOO
V MALKAN for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MS MANISHA L SHAH ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 09/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Petitioner
is the original accused in the complaint at Annexure-A ,
bearing I-C.R. No.278 of 2010, dated 24.07.2010, filed before
Navrangpura Police Station. The prayer of the petitioner is that the
said complaint be quashed, since it discloses no offence qua him.
2. The
counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that there are no
allegations against the petitioner in the said complaint, whatsoever,
and whatever be the force in the allegations made against the rest of
the accused. So far as the petitioner is concerned, since the
complaint does not prima
facie disclose
commission of any offence, the same must be quashed.
3. Upon perusal of the
complaint, it appears that the complainant has made serious
allegations against all the accused of large scale fraud committed by
them in respect of one M/s. Country Club, in which the petitioner
and some of the accused persons were employed. The allegations
include siphoning of marketing as well as administrative files and
lodging bogus insurance claims and so on. It is true that so far as
the present petitioner is concerned, there is no individual, specific
or independent role is attributed to him, in the complaint itself.
It is, however, well-settled that an FIR is not an encyclopedia of
all the allegations. I find that there are serious allegations
against all the accused, including the present petitioner, of having
committed offences at more places than the one, in that complaint.
I, therefore, find that this is not a fit case to quash the
complaint, even before the investigation could be carried out.
4. In the result, the
petition fails and is dismissed, accordingly.
(AKIL
KURESHI, J.)
Umesh/
Top
