HARDIK ASHWINBHAI BHATT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for respondent State. None appears for respondent No.2.

(2.) Heard learned advocate Mr.Raxit Dholakia for the petitioner and learned APP Mr.Soham Joshi appearing for the respondent - State.

(3.) Arguing for quashment of the impugned FIR, learned advocate Mr.Dholakia for the petitioner submit that first of all the transaction alleged in the FIR is of civil nature between the parties and the role of the present petitioner in FIR is that of guarantor who gave guarantee to repay the amount if Dr.Bhavin Parikh would not pay the amount for purchase of mobile. He would further submit that if FIR is taken at its face value, it does not establish the offence under Sec. 415 i.e. of cheating. The present petitioner is not beneficiary of the alleged transaction. Since the essential ingredients of Sec. 420 is not attracted in the present case, the petition may be allowed and impugned FIR may be quashed.