JAIRAJSINH HIMATSINH RANA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned APP Mr. Poojari waives service of rule for the respondent-State.

(2.) The present application has been filed by the applicant, original accused No. 3, under sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint registered as C.R. No. I-52/2010 dated 22.6.2010 with R.R. Police Station, Ahemedabad Rural at Ahmedabad and also for further stay of the investigation on the grounds set out in detail in the Memo of Application, inter alia, that M/s. Hind Petrochem & Refinery is engaged in the business of petroleum products since last several years. It has obtained various certificates from the State as well as the Central Government. It is also contended that the said M/s. Hind Petrochem & Refinery is purchasing crude oil bottom sludge from various companies like IOC, GSPC, Cairn India, ONGC, etc. Therefore, the present complaint does not disclose the ingredients for the offence under sec. 309, 407, 411, 414, 415 and 114 of IPC.

(3.) Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. BB Naik appearing with learned advocate Mr. Viral Shah for the applicant submitted that the entire complaint and the investigation by respondent No. 2 is mala fide. It has been submitted that as per the provisions of the Cr.P.C., respondent No. 2 has no jurisdiction or authority to make the investigation as he has been in the R.R. Cell and therefore he could not investigate this complaint. Further, learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Naik submitted that the driver or the cleaner, though arrested on 17.6.2010, they are not produced before any court and the FIR has been registered on 22.6.2010. He, therefore, submitted that the panchnama, which is produced, clearly suggests that in the course of business, the sludge oil purchased is processed and thereafter it is sold with due permission or licence. He has referred to and relied upon necessary certificates and permission which are produced on record at Annexure-D colly. He emphasised that this panchnama is made by the Mamlatdar, who is a Government officer, which is also not believed or accepted by respondent No. 2 and with ulterior motive he has tried to cause harassment for which the present petition has been filed to quash the complaint.