RONAK NIKETANBHAI SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been preferred the petitioner herein ? original accused No.3 (as per charge-sheet) to quash and set aside the impugned FIR being C.R.No.I-681 of 2002 registered with Naranpura Police Station, Ahmedabad as well as to quash and set aside the Supplementary Charge-sheet filed against the petitioner being Charge-sheet No.357 of 2003 dated 20/09/2003 in Criminal Case No.1287 of 2003 pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.9, Ahmedabad and subsequently to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings against the petitioner arising out of the same.

(2.) IT appears that respondent No.2 herein has lodged the FIR being C.R.No.I-681 of 2002 before Naranpura Police Station against the office bearers of Sabarmati Co-Operative Bank Limited and others (in all against 14 accused persons) for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 471, 477-A, 114 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code with respect to mismanagement, misappropriation, cheating, forging the documents, etc. IT appears that so far as the petitioner is concerned, the main allegation against the petitioner was that office bearers of the Bank advanced Rs.18 Lacs though permissible limit so far as account of Bhagwati Enterprise was only Rs.64,000/-. Therefore, it is alleged that by giving more amount than the limit prescribed, the petitioner has committed an offence of misappropriation. IT appears that charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons except the petitioner and subsequently supplementary charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for the offences as alleged. Hence, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the supplementary charge-sheet, the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) MR.Udit Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 herein - original complainant has not disputed that entire amount due and payable has been repaid by the petitioner and has requested to pass an appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the case.