VIPUL D JAGIRDAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr.M.R.Mengdey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.1 State. Ms.Shilpa R.Shah, learned Advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.3 original complainant. With the consent of the learned Advocates, both the applications are taken up for final hearing today. As common question of law and facts arise in both the applications, and arising out of common F.I.R., they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Criminal Misc. Application No. 4824 of 2007 is filed by the applicant original accused No.4 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 4976 of 2007 is filed by the applicant original accused No.3 for quashing and setting aside the F.I.R. being I.C.R.N o. 327 of 2007 registered with Umra Police Station, Surat.

(3.) Mr.R.R.Marshall, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that so far as the original accused No. 3 is concerned, he has only filed one application for joining party in the suit filed by respondent No.3 original complainant in Regular Civil Suit No. 74 of 2006 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (SD), Surat and the said application was for joining original accused No.2 as party defendant to the said proceedings and the said application was allowed and original accused No.1 was permitted to be joined as party defendant in the said proceedings and except that the petitioner have not done anything. It is submitted merely because original accused No.3 as an Advocate filed application for joining party, it cannot be said that he has committed any offences as alleged. It is also further submitted that so far as original accused No.4 is concerned, against the order passed by the learned trial Court allowing the application for permitting original accused No.2 to be joined as party respondent to the aforesaid proceedings, original complainant preferred appeal before the District Court and in the said appeal original accused No.4 appeared as an Advocate on behalf of original accused No.1 and that subsequently one another suit came to be filed by original accused No.1 through Advocate - original accused No.4 i.e. the petitioner of Cr.M.A. No. 4824 of 2007. It is submitted that except above, nothing has been done by the said petitioner original accused No.4. It is submitted that merely because both the petitioners appeared as Advocates on behalf of original accused No.2 in Court proceedings, it cannot be said that the petitioners / applicants have committed the offences as alleged. It is submitted on bare reading of the complaint main allegations are against original accused Nos.1 and 2 and even considering the complaint as a whole, no case is made out against the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners original accused Nos. 3 and 4 are Advocates appearing in the District Court, Surat since many years. It is submitted that merely because they have appeared on behalf of original accused No.1 they are arrayed as accused in the aforesaid complaint. It is submitted that there is no over act attributed to the petitioners except that filing complaint and/or suit on behalf of accused No.2. Therefore, it is submitted that to continue criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but abuse of process of law and would be unnecessary harassment to the petitioners. Therefore, it is requested to quash the aforesaid complaint qua the petitioners.