NAVINKUMAR HARGOVINDBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants-original accused Nos.1,2 and 3, seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the first information report being C.R. No.I-192 of 2016 registered with the Umra Police Station, District: Surat for the offence punishable under sections 406,420, 465, 467, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The dispute is between the partners. The dispute led to filing of a complaint by one of the partners in the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat for the offence punishable under sections 409, 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) read with sections 114 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate, by his order dated 21.11.2015, directed the police to investigate the complaint under section 156(3) of the Indian Penal Code. The order passed by the learned Magistrate culminated in the registration of the M. Case No.01 of 2015 at the Pandesara Police Station, Surat. At the end of the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet and the charge-sheet culminated in the Criminal Case No.12574 of 2016, which is pending, as on date, in the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat. The respondent No.2 herein, thereafter, filed one another FIR, which is the subject matter of this application alleging that the applicants herein forged his signatures in the papers of the loan agreement and produced the same before the HDFC Bank. On the strength of such documents, containing bogus signatures, an amount of Rs. 2,90,20,000/- was obtained as a mortgage loan. It is alleged that instead of diverting the money into the partnership firm, the same was utilized for their personal use.

(3.) The applicants seek to quash the first information report in question substantially on the ground that the same is a second FIR and could not have been filed by the respondent No.2. The submission is that what is alleged in the second FIR was within the knowledge of both, the first informant as well as the Investigating Agency. The act complained in the second FIR could have been made the subject matter of investigation in the first FIR itself. There was no need to file a second FIR. The learned counsel would submit that it is the police, who brought to the notice of the first informant, in the course of the investigation of the first FIR, that the signatures of the first informant were forged on certain documents produced before the HDFC Bank. It is pointed out that even while opposing the bail application filed by the applicants in connection with the first FIR, there is a reference of the allegations of the present FIR in the affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer. The learned counsel, first invited my attention to page-23, which is the last part of the FIR in question. Thereafter, he invited my attention to page-79, which is the affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer for the purpose of opposing the plea of bail on the part of the applicants and, lastly, the learned counsel invited my attention to page-110 of the paper book, which is a part of the charge-sheet filed in connection with the first FIR.