NARESHKUMAR SHIVANDAS BHAGWANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant is original accused, he is said to be car dealer. An agreement said to have been entered into on 21/02/2006 betweenapplicant/accused and the respondent no. 1. The agreement was for purchase of Maruti Esteem Car. The price agreed was Rs. One lakh fifteen thousand. The complainant had paid to Rs.1 lakh and the applicant /accused had given a delivery of the said car. Rs.15,000/ - (Fifteen Thousand) was to be paid at the time of transferring of name of the respondent in the R.C. Book.

(2.) IT is the say of the respondent no. 1 that he had waited for over 5 months however applicant/accused did not responded positively. Hence, the respondent no. 1 had given a notice on 13/07/2006 through his advocate. Thereafter complaint was filed before JMFC Court, Modasa, Court had sent the complaint for police inquiry and thereafter process was issued against the applicant/accused. The applicant seeks to quash the process under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

(3.) AT the time of hearing, learned advocate for applicant Mr. A.M. Kharadi after briefly referring the facts of the case, has submitted that no offence is made out under Section 406 or 420 of IPC. It was submitted that ingredients of the said provisions are not even remotely attracted. It was submitted that there was no intention to cheat on the part of the applicant. Further it was pointed out that transaction had taken place at Godhara, therefore, if, at all criminal proceeding is maintainable then the same ought to have been initiated before the appropriate court i.e. not Modasa, but at Godhara Court. The learned advocate has drawn attention to (All Cargo Movers India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhanesh Badarmal Case, 2007 14 SCC 776 and V.P. Srivastava Vs. India Expulsive Ltd., 2010 10 SCC 361.