Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/4120/1997 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 4120 of 1997
In
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 4120 of 1997
In
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 4120 of 1997
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
J
K SINGH - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
BB NAIK for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR LB DABHI, APP for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR PT
PATEL for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
Date
: 16/04/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
The
short facts of the case appears to be that the complaint was filed
by respondent No.2 against the petitioner for the offences under
sections 418, 420, 467 and 471 of IPC vide M-Case No.30/97 with the
accusation that certain share certificates were given by the accused
to the complainant for sale of share in the market and signed
transfer forms of the original holder of the share were also given.
As per the complainant, thereafter, the shares were sold.
Consideration was paid, but when it was sent for transfer in the
concerned company, it was reported that the share certificates are
bogus and not genuine. Therefore, the complaint for sale was being
filed by the complainant. Under these circumstances, the applicant
has approached to this Court for quashing of the said complaint.
Considering
the allegation made in the complaint that the share certificate is
not genuine and bogus as per the report received from the concerned
Company, the investigation would be required to be undertaken with
the help of the expert and it cannot be said that if the contents of
complaint are considered as it is, it would not constitute any
offence. Under these circumstances, it would not be a case for
quashing of the complaint in exercise of the power under section 482
of the CRPC.
Mr.Naik,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did contend that the
petitioner had only signed as the witness, therefore, the complaint
against him cannot be maintained.
In
my view, such aspects would be essentially a matter of investigation
about the role by the petitioner accused, whether as was that of a
mere witness or who sold the shares to the complainant. The
accusation in the complaint is that the shares were given by the
accused-complainant for sale, therefore, when such aspect is yet to
be investigated, the mere signature of the applicant as witness in
the transfer form would not be sufficient ground to quash the
complaint.
In
view of the above, the petition is meritless, hence, dismissed.
Rule discharged. I.R. Vacated.
(JAYANT
PATEL, J.)
*bjoy
Top