RAJENDRA J DAMANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both these petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside respectively the complaint Criminal Case No. S.G(DD) C/No. 544 dated 12-12-1995 C. R. - 3072 of 1995 and S.K(DD) C/No. 265 dated 26-10-1995 C. R. - 2683 of 1995 under Secs. 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.'), which were filed in the concerned Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta in connection with the agreement alleged to have been forged/fabricated in the city of Ahmedabad, which agreement would read as under :-

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner in both these petitions that because of delayed and irregular payments to the petitioner from the employer M/s. Plywood and Timber Products Agency, Ahmedabad in accordance with the aforesaid agreement the relation between the petitioner and the said employer as well as its power of attorney Shri J. B. Pachhesia had been strained. This resulted in issuance of the order of the transfer of the petitioner from Ahmedabad to Calcutta. The petitioner was, therefore, required to file Civil Suit No. 2991 of 1991 in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad bringing under challenge the legality and validity of the said transfer order. As the interim relief was granted ex-parte and subsequently vacated in the said suit, the petitioner had to move Appeal From Order No. 199 of 1992 alongwith Civil Application No. 1494 of 1992 before this Court, which granted interim stay against the transfer. Being displeased with the legal action of the petitioner as aforesaid, the employer discontinued to make payments of regular salaries to the petitioner and thereby attempted to place the petitioner and his family in the economic crisis. The petitioner was, therefore, required to move Civil Applications Nos. 3803 of 1992 and 1325 of 1993 in the above referred Civil Application No. 1494 of 1992 in Appeal From Order No. 199 of 1992. This Court directed the employer to make payment of the salaries to the petitioner regularly.

(3.) It is further the case of the petitioner that as aforesaid the employer had given a two wheeler Bajaj Scooter bearing No. GJ-1 B-8361 belonging to M/s. Sharda Plywood Industries Ltd. However, Jamnadas B. Pachhesia, the power of attorney of the said Sharda Plywood Industries filed Criminal Enquiry Case No. 150 of 1991 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad under Secs. 408 and 420 of the I.P.C. The concerned police officer of the Kagdapith Police Station has taken physical custody of the aforesaid scooter pursuant to the proceedings in the said Criminal Inquiry Case. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad by his order dated 18-11-1991 rejected the prayer for interim custody of the said scooter on the complaint of Sharda Plywood Industries Limited, with the result that the order was challenged in Criminal Revision Application No. 315 of 1991 before the City Civil and Sessions Court at Ahmedabad. In that Revision Application the petitioner's employer M/s. Plywood and Timber Products Agency, Ahmedabad was joined as the opponent for the first time after lapse of a considerable period. The learned Judge of the Sessions Court by his order dated 31-3-1992 granted interim custody of the said scooter to the original complainant M/s. Sharda Plywood Industries Limited, with the result that the petitioner has preferred Special Criminal Application No. 814 of 1992 before this Court and by way of interim relief the petitioner was granted interim custody of the scooter on 25-5-1992. However, the said Special Criminal Application No. 814 of 1992 was dismissed for default on 1- 10-1992. M/s. Sharda Plywood Industries Limited, therefore, obtained actual physical custody of the scooter from the Kagdapith Police Station in October/November 1992. The petitioner has, therefore, preferred Misc. Criminal Application No. 486 of 1992 for the purpose of restoration of Special Criminal Application No. 481 of 1992 in December 1992. The said Special Criminal Application was restored to file and thereafter again rejected by order dated 5-10-1995.