Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/1361/2009 2/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1361 of 2009
=============================================
CHANDRAKANT
S/O KISHANRAO BURKUNDE - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance :
MR
ABHIRAJ R TRIVEDI for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR KARTIK PANDYA APP for
Respondent(s) : 1,
MR YN RAVANI for Respondent(s) :
3,
=============================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 30/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
This
petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read
with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by
the petitioner to quash and set aside Criminal Complaint No.824 of
2007 on the ground that complaints under provisions of Negotiable
Instruments Act shall be filed at two different courts for the same
amount of cheque, and therefore, it is a clear abuse of process of
law and causes undue harassment to the petitioner. It is further
submitted that for the first vehicle, which was financed by
complainant company, two chassis numbers were there and a request was
made to allot another vehicle and subsequently purchased a new
WaganoR car for which also finance was arranged by respondent No.3.
It
is submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that though
cheques were handed over to the finance company in advance for the
purchase of first vehicle and even for second vehicle no outstanding
dues are there, but the respondent No.3 seized the vehicle, and
therefore, the issuance of process by the learned Magistrate
deserves to be quashed and set
aside.
Mr.Yogesh
Ravani, learned advocate for the respondent No.3 has placed reliance
on the affidavit filed by Manager of the respondent No.3 company and
submitted that this petition deserves to be thrown out on the ground
of suppression of material facts inasmuch as a complaint was filed by
the petitioner for illegal seizure of Maruti Van and robbery of
Rs.10,000/- and after due investigation, the Investigating Authority
came to the conclusion that the complaint was baseless. It is
submitted that agreement was executed for two cars bearing
registration Nos.MH-28-C-1261 (Maruti Van) and MH 04 AX 189 (Maruti
WaganoR) and accordingly finance was arranged and cheques were issued
towards agreed installments. Upon failure to honour the obligation
to pay legal dues statutory notices were issued and compliance was
reported, and therefore, the criminal complaints were lodged against
the petitioner. It is therefore submitted that the defence that is
raised by the petitioner in this case cannot be gone into in exercise
of powers under Section 482 of the Code.
Having
heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record
and order impugned passed by the learned Magistrate by which process
is issued, I am satisfied that agreements in accordance with law were
executed by the parties and the above agreements were signed by the
petitioner and the representative of finance company, finance was
arranged by respondent No.3 and advance cheques for agreed
installments were issued by the petitioner and upon depositing the
same, cheques were returned, and therefore, following the procedure
as laid down under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
statutory notice was issued and complaint was filed disclosing
ingredients of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. I do not find any substance in the argument of
learned advocate for the petitioner. No case is made out to
interfere in exercise of powers either under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
This
petition stands dismissed of accordingly. However, there shall be no
order as to costs.
Notice
discharged.
[Anant
S. Dave, J.]
*pvv
Top