MOHAMMED SAJID HABIBBHAI MEMON Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three applications have been preferred under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. and arise out of the same set of facts. Further, the applicant-Mohammed Sajid Habibbhai Memon, who is original accused No.2 in the FIR which is under challenge in Criminal Misc. Application Nos.17373/2022 and 18300/2022, is the sole accused in the FIR, which is under challenge in Criminal Misc. Application No.19000/2022. Hence, all the three applications are heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. N.D. Nanavati appearing for the applicants in all three applications submitted that the dispute in question essentially relates to Books of Accounts of the partnership firm. He took the Court through the allegations made in the impugned two FIRs to submit that the allegations made in both the complaints filed before different Police Stations are similar. Only with an ulterior motive to arm-twist the applicants, the present FIRs have been filed. He submitted that the appropriate remedy for the complainant was to file a suit before the competent civil Court. It was, accordingly, urged to exercise discretion in favour of the applicants by releasing them on anticipatory bail.

(3.) Heard learned advocates on both the sides and perused the material on record. It appears from the record that the complainant along with one Naushad Zafiyuddin Rangooni and accused-Salimbhai Habibbhai Memon had started a partnership firm in the year 2008 in the name of M/s. S.N.A. Infrastructure Ltd. The main allegation against the applicants is that since 2011 till the date of registration of complaints, the applicants had misappropriated funds of the partnership firm. By forging the signature of Naushad Zafiyuddin Rangooni, Director of the Company, the applicants are alleged to have issued false Allotment Letters, Possession Letters and also prepared bogus Seal in the name of the Firm and thereafter, utilized such Seal as genuine. The applicants are also alleged to have sold Flats to prospective owners without the knowledge of other Directors of the Firm and in some instances, the applicants are also alleged to have sold certain Flats again, though the same were already sold off and they were aware about the sale of such Flats.