VIJAYCHANDRA PRAKASH SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this petition for the purpose of quashing of the complaint filed by respondent No.2 being Crime Register No.I-284 of 2007 before J.P. Road Police Station, Vadodara, and also the proceedings arising out of the said complaint.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the rise of present petition are as under:

(3.) Mr. Ashish Dagli, appearing for the petitioners, has contended that the complaint ex-facie is not maintainable and the same is nothing but a clear example of abuse of the process of law. He has further contended that before filing of the present complaint, there was one another complaint lodged on 9th of March, 2005 being C.R.No.I-89 of 2005 against petitioner No.1 alleging that with the help of bogus documents, petitioner No.1 got himself appointed as Director and the complainant is running Security Services as Managing Director and the date of her appointment was shown as 10th May, 2004 and therefore, the documents appear to have been concocted. He has further contended that petitioner No.1 simultaneously has filed criminal case against three persons including respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under sections 46, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120B of IPC alleging that appointment of respondent No.2 as Managing Director is based upon fraud and concocted documents created by respondent No.2 and Form Nos.23, 32 and 25 C were got signed on behalf of the person, who was in ICCU ward at the hospital. Based upon which, the said complaint was processed and when the case was investigated before the very same Police Station, this second complaint came to be filed by respondent No.2 implicating other members as accused including petitioner No.1 making almost similar grievance for which, an appropriate remedy before the civil forum is very much available. He has drawn the attention of this Court that before filing the complaint by respondent No.2, petitioner No.1 had filed detailed representations before the authority including police, Home Department and Police Commissioner and by referring to these representations, it has been contended that the apprehension which was voiced out against respondent No.2 has come true and this complaint is an outburst of the proceedings initiated by petitioner No.1 and therefore, apparently, the complaint in question is nothing but a clear example of the abuse of the process of law. He has further contended that way back in the year 2005, even a legal notice was also given to State Bank of Saurashtra, Baroda, whereby petitioner No.1 has requested his pleader to intimate not to permit respondent No.2 and his associates to operate the bank account of SCI International Securities Limited and therefore, entire chronology of events and the grievance which is voiced out is nothing but a clear example of civil dispute and without resorting to appropriate forum, with a view to put pressure upon petitioner No.1, this complaint came to be filed. Mr. Dagli has further contended that it is seriously in dispute how the signature of brother of petitioner No.1 of a meeting dated 10th May, 2004 was secured particularly when his brother was suffering from the disease and was actually admitted in ICCU Ward of Medi Surge Hospital and passed away on 12th of May, 2004. He has further contended that, in fact, the sister-in-law of the petitioner i.e. wife of Sureshchandra Shukla was residing at Uttar Pradesh and number of documentary evidences were produced before the investigating agency when the earlier complaint was made that she is the legally wedded wife and Vilaspati is the daughter out of wedlock of the deceased with Hira Rani and therefore, the situation is such where respondent No.2 found herself in helpless condition and when she is not likely to succeed as per her wishes in the first complaint and therefore, this present complaint in question is filed as a counterblast to the complaint filed by petitioner No.1 which is with a view to divert the attention from the core issue. According to him, second complaint ought not to have been registered at all as substantially the allegations are part and parcel of the earlier complaint and grievance in which, father of the petitioner has also been implicated and arraigned as an accused person which indicates the sole purpose of respondent No.2 in filing such false and frivolous complaint and therefore, by referring to this factual data, he has contended that background of facts are such wherein the entire second complaint is required to be held as not maintainable and therefore, requested the Court to grand the relief as prayed for in the petition. To substantiate his contentions, he has referred to following decisions which are to be dealt with in this judgment at an appropriate stage: