ROHITBHAI RAMANLAL SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the applicant, original accused No.4 under Sec. 482 of the of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the First Information Report being C.R.No.I-207 of 2005 registered with Madhavpura Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Ss. 406 , 409 , 420 , 467 , 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal .

(2.) It appears that original accused Nos.2 and 3 had obtained advances for development of his business to the tune of Rs.30.00lacs on hypothecation book debts, which was duly granted by the original informant who is original respondent No.2 herein, Senior Manager of Madhavpura Mercantile Co. Op. BankLtd. (presently under liquidation). It is the case of the first informant in the FIR that over and above Rs.30.00 lacs subsequently Rs.10.00lacs more was also advanced on an application being given by accused No.1 i.e. Jem Trading Company, a partnership firm, where accused Nos.2 and 3 were the partners. The Board of Directors had on 4/12/2000 sanctioned the application made for raising the advance to the tune of Rs.10.00 lacs more. Pursuant to the said letter, the accused Nos.2 and 3 have executed all necessary documents. It further alleges that accused Nos. 2 and

(3.) was not providing correct debts and statement of accounts to the Bank. That by passage of time, firm of the accused Nos.2 and 3 could not repay the advances in time and therefore, over and above the recovery proceedings by filing Lavad Suit, present FIR came to be filed against 6 accused persons where name of the present applicant has shown as accused No.4 as a guarantor of accused Nos. 1 to 3. 3. Mr.Bhoharia, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that merely non payment of advances and for obtaining the same, no single document, which is alleged to be forged document by the present applicant has been produced by the applicant. Mr.Bhoharia, learned advocate for the applicant submits that even if allegation of forgery is accepted, that is made against accused Nos.2 and 3, however, being a guarantor of the advance, which was given to accused Nos.2 and 3, no role has been assigned in the aforesaid FIR. Mr.Bhoharia, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that as on today, applicant had repaid the dues and the Bank has also issued 'No Due Certificate' on 4/6/2014, which is a part of this petition at page No.15. Mr.Bhoharia, learned advocate for the applicant further relies on the order passed by coordinate Bench of this Court (Coram: Umesh A. Trivedi, J. dtd. 24/1/2019 in Criminal Misc. Application No.10211 of 2014) wherein petition which is filed by accused Nos. 2 and 3 who are original borrowers came to be allowed and FIR came to be quashed and set aside. Mr.Bhoharia, learned advocate for the applicant further submitted that in view of the aforesaid order, present petition is also required to be allowed as FIR against the main borrower has already been quashed and petitioner being a guarantor has no role and therefore, he prays to allow this application.