Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/3585/2011 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 3585 of 2011
In
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 2588 of 2011
=========================================================
KIRIT
CHIMANLAL PATEL - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR.SUBHASH
G BAROT for
Applicant(s) : 1,
Ms.C.M.Shah, APP for Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 16/03/2011
ORAL
ORDER
This
application is filed by the applicant seeking permission to file
affidavit in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.2588 of 2011 filed
by respondent no.3 herein opposing the prayer of quashing of First
Information Report lodged by respondent-bank against the accused with
Patan City A-Division Police Station for the offences punishable
under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code.
Learned
advocate Mr.Barot submits that the applicant herein is the
shareholder of Patan Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd. and as the bank has
entered into settlement with the present respondent no.3 against the
interest of the bank and with ulterior motive, he has filed this
application.
Heard
learned advocate Mr.Barot for the applicant, learned APP for
respondent no.1 and learned advocate Mr.Bhatt for respondent no.3.
Mr.Bhatt
submitted that the complaint is lodged by the Bank and Lavad Suit is
filed before the Board of Nominees for recovery of the loan amount.
In the said suit, both the parties placed the settlement on record
and as per the settlement, present respondent no.3 deposited
Rs.3,00,000/- with the bank and remaining amount will be paid by way
of installments. He further submits that as per the settlement, the
amount is going to be paid in 2015.
Having
heard learned advocates for the parties and on perusal of the record,
it can be noticed that as the bank has taken all care for recovery of
the amount and entered into settlement, in the opinion of this Court,
the responsible officer of the bank is only necessary party and the
present petitioner is not necessary party when a police case is
filed.
In
view of the above, I find no merits in this application and it
deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.
(
M.D.Shah, J )
srilatha
Top