JAISINBHAI BHAGWANBHAI VALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Criminal Misc.Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner ? original accused to quash and set aside the impugned FIR being C.R.No.I-151 of 2004 registered with Kodinar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) IT appears that election of Kodinar Taluka Cooperative Banking Union Limited was to be held at the relevant time and voters' list came to be published by the petitioner being Returning Officer and General Manager of Kodinar Taluka Cooperative Banking Union Limited. IT was the case on behalf of the original complainant that his name has been deleted from the voters' list and his valuable right as voter has been taken away and by creating some documents, the Share Certificate, which was in the name of the original complainant, has been transferred in the name of other persons. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned FIR, the petitioner has preferred the present Criminal Misc.Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the averments and allegations made in the impugned FIR, it appears that the dispute seems to be election dispute and grievance of the original complainant is that his name has been deleted from the voters' list and his valuable right as voter has been taken away. However, it has come on record that in fact Share Certificate, which was in the name of the original complainant has been transferred in the name of his own son on application submitted by the original complainant. The aforesaid has not been disputed. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and considering the averments and allegations made in the impugned FIR, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed any offence as alleged. It appears that at the relevant time due to election, the impugned complaint has been filed against the petitioner with malafide intention. It is required to be noted that subsequently election petition was also filed. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to the Court that this is a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to quash and set aside the impugned complaint, which is nothing but abuse of process of law and Court.