MANISH JITENDRABHAI JOSHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been preferred by the applicant/original accused no.2 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity "CrPC") praying to quash and set aside the complaint, being C.R. No. I-545 of 2010 registered with Naroda Police Station, Ahmedabad for an offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, so also to quash entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4/2011 pending in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 18, Ahmedabad.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant was a running partner in a partnership firm comprising of family members under the name and style of "Sona Trading" since 20 years and doing business of sale and purchase of grains as well as running a Rice Mill in the name of "Kishan Rice Mill" in partnership, which is closed since three years. That, as the complainant was intending to give rice mill on rent, one Kodarbhai J. Prajapati came with (1) Rameshbhai N. Gondaliya (accused no.1) and (2) Manishbhai J. Joshi (accused no.2) and both had a talk with the complainant to run the rice mill on rent and on 25.10.2008, a rent agreement was entered between them and Rameshbhai and Manishbhai gave Rs. 2 lacs by cheque as deposit and thereafter, both have paid rent of Rs. 40,000/- per month up to one year and during that time, both have purchased 'Dangar' from Sona Trading and that amount was also paid and they were running business in the name of Vimal Mamra Factory. Thereafter, the rent agreement was renewed on 29.10.2009 by fixing rent at Rs. 50,000/- per month, and thereafter, rent was due from 01.11.2009, and Rameshbhai and Manishbhai, for their business, purchased Dangar (grains) of Rs. 13,55,881/- from the complainant and out of that cash amount of Rs. 3,80,000/- was paid and Rs. 9,75,881/- was outstanding and in March 2010, the Accountant informed the complainant that Rameshbhai and Manishbhai went away. Thereafter, complainant contacted telephonically and met Rameshbhai and Manishbhai for payment, but they did not give the outstanding amount. That, before starting business in Ahmedabad District with Rameshbhai Gondaliya-accused in partnership, he was doing business with Rameshbhai Gondaliya and Pravinbhai at Gondal in partnership for about two years in the name of Vimal Mamra Factory by taking the factory of respondent no.2 on rent by an agreement for one year @ Rs. 45,000/- per month and they had given Rs. 2,00,000/- advance on account of deposit, which was paid to the respondent no.2-complainant, thereafter, the rent agreement was renewed and firm suffered losses and it was not possible to run the business and later on, the factory was closed in the month of February 2010. That, the accused no.1-Rameshbhai was handling accounts and managing the same. The applicant was informed by Rameshbhai that the account of the complainant-respondent was cleared. Thereafter, the applicant came back to Gondal and started business of commission out of the Mamara (goods) being delivered to Gudgaon, UP and Maharashtra for about one and half year. Thereafter, applicant again started business of packing Mamra (goods) in partnership with other persons in the name and style of "Sadashiv" at Gondal and presently doing the same. For the purpose of running a Mamra factory in the rented premises ie., Mill of the complainant-respondent no.2, the partners have purchased machineries worth Rs. 10 lacs from the amount of partnership firm and installed in the Factory. The applicant came to know from Rameshbhai Gondaliya that those machineries were sold out by the respondent no.2-complainant in Rs. 5 lacs to the third party, without even informing the partners of Vimal Mamra Factory. As the firm-Vimal Mamra was not in position to continue with the business and was not in a position to pay rent and could not pay the rent from 01.11.2009 to February 2011, the respondent no.2-complaint filed the impugned complaint.

(3.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Tushar L. Sheth appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned advocate Mr. Vilav K. Bhatiya appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 and learned APP Mr. LB Dabhi appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1-State.