VIJAYKUMAR SHANKERRAO BOKHIL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short CrPC) urging to quash the FIR lodged at ICR No.64 of 2008 at Panigate Police Station, Vadodara, alleging the commission of offences interalia against the petitioner punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506(2), 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC).

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the case of the first informant was that, he was employed by one Himanshu, who is engaged in the business of construction of building, for colour work and towards part of consideration, he was alloted one Flat No.206 in the scheme known as Sakar ­ B at Vadodara and the remaining amount was yet to be paid by said Himanshu. It was further alleged that before allotting the said flat to the informant,the debt was incurred by mortgaging the said flat with Canara Bank and thus there being a dispute on that count, the informant was promised by Himanshu for refund of the cost of the flat. In the FIR, a statement was also made that the fatherinlaw of Himanshu, name of whom was not known to the informant and whom the informant met for 15 times for money, had taken up the responsibility of repayment on the condition of informant withdrawing the Civil Suit No.1035 of 2007. The said fatherin law of Himanshu is the petitioner before this Court.

(3.) WHILE 2nd respondent is absent despite repeated calls, in the affidavitinreply, in paragraph No.6, he has come out with a case that the petitioner was involved in daytoday affairs of the construction project of his soninlaw, Himanshu Jagdishbhai Saptrishi and his name was not known to him, but relationship was. This statement in the affidavitinreply appears an improvement to the version made in the complaint, inasmuch as, no such plea has been made in the FIR.