MOHIT SHARMA DIRECTOR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant-original accused to quash and set aside the impugned FIR being I-CR No. 100 of 2008 registered with Aadhoi Police Station, Aadhoi, Tal: Bhachau, Dist. Kutch for the offence under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THAT the respondent no.2 herein original complainant has lodged the impugned FIR being I-CR No.100 of 2008 against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code alleging the inter alia that complainant has kept by force the goods i.e. 60.270 MT of Sponge Iron belonging to the complainant -Navkar Ispat Ltd., and thereby the petitioner has committed the offence under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code. THAT being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned FIR, the petitioner-original accused has preferred the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash and set aside the impugned FIR.

(3.) HEARD the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that goods in question i.e. 60.270 MT Sponge Iron belong to the original complainant, which was being transported through Pisces Exim/ M/s. Kandla Cargo Carriers through five trucks supplied by the petitioner. As such nothing is on record that there was any contract between the complainant and the petitioner for transportation of the goods. Even according to the petitioner also there was a contract to provide transport service between the petitioner and Pisces Exim/ M/s. Kandla Cargo Carriers to lift Sponge Iron from Navkar Ispat Morgarh to Electrotherm (India) Ltd and the original complainant is not in picture at all. It appears that there seems to be some dispute between Pisces Exim/ M/s. Kandla Cargo Carriers for non payment of transportation charges for which the complainant has nothing to do and still the goods of the complainant has been detained unlawfully. As stated above, petitioner is not disputing the detention of the goods in question which belonged to the complainant. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that there is no case made out against the petitioner at all and therefore, impugned FIR deserves to be quashed and set aside. As such no case is made out to quash and set aside the impugned FIR without any further investigation. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the allegations and the averment in the complaint prima facie disclosed cognizable offences which are further required to be investigated.