DARUSING DURGASING Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner " original accused has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for quashing and setting aside the summons issued in Criminal Case No.435/1999 in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate at Ahmedabad.

(2.) Mr. B.B. Naik, learned advocate with Mr. D.S. Vasavda, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No.2, namely, Prakash Kanubhai Shah, who is appearing as party in person has filed criminal complaint being Criminal Case No.435/1999 for the offences punishable under Section 500 of the I.P.C. He has submitted that the respondent No.2 filed Company Application No.364/1998 and in the said application various allegations were levelled against the Official Liquidator as well as the office bearers of the Textile Labour Association (T.L.A.). In response to the notice issued by the Court in the said application, the present petitioner has filed affidavit in reply. In para 2 of the said affidavit-in-reply, it is stated that the Company Application has been filed by the petitioner (present Respondent No. 2) with a malafide intention to harass the other workers of the Bharat Suryodaya Mills Ltd. to delay the sale so that the unrest amongst the workers is created so as to disturb the peace. It is further stated that this is nothing but an attempt to blackmail to all parties and create a nuisance value. The Court is requested to take note of this fact very seriously because Mr. Prakash Shah (present Respondent No. 2) is trying to act contrary to the orders passed by the Court. In para-6 of the affidavit-in-reply, the petitioner has highlighted the misdeeds committed by the present respondent No.2. In the last paragraph of the affidavit in reply, it was stated by the present petitioner that the Court should not encourage such frivolous application because the respondent No.2 has formed a habit of filing such frivolous applications.

(3.) Mr. Naik has further submitted that this Court has passed an order in the said application on 02.12.1998 and the said application was rejected. While rejecting the said application, this Court has observed that the alleged discrepancy with respect to nine machines did not exist. In respect of the allegation that some 275 machines were not valued, the present respondent No. 2 was called upon to show as to which those machineries were, but he could not identify them. The Court, therefore, took the view that nothing could be done in the said application and it was accordingly rejected.