ARVINDBHAI RAVJIBHAI PATEL Vs. DHIRUBHAI SAMBHUBHAI KAKADIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner by this Misc. Criminal Application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has moved this Court, inter alia, praying for quashing and setting aside the proceedings by way of Criminal Case No. 66 of 1991 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, initiated pursuant to the complaint filed by the respondent No. 3 for the alleged offences punishable under Secs. 406, 420, 504 and 506 of I.P.C.

(2.) Facts and circumstances in brief leading to filing of this petition : The respondent No. 3 Dhirubhai Shambhubhai Kakadia filed a complaint against the petitioner-Arvindbhai R. Patel for the alleged offences punishable under Secs. 406, 420, 504, 506(2) of I.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused had developed friendly relations with him and had borrowed Rs. 90,000.00 from him in the year 1988, which he badly needed for purchasing the building material in carrying forward his construction business. While taking the said loan, the accused had also shown his willingness to transfer his house bearing Block No. 26, situated in Hariom Society, Surat, in the name of the complainant. Trusting the words of the accused, complainant paid Rs. 90,000/ - in cash to him on the very day in presence of Vipulbhai and Valjibhai. Not only that, but the petitioner also transferred his aforesaid house in name of the complainant by executing a writing on a General Stamp Paper of Rs. 10.00. Thereafter, according to the complainant, not only the accused failed to repay the borrowed amount of Rs. 90,000/- for which he had repeatedly visited his house, but the house in question which was transferred to him, was also sold to somebody else. It is further the case of the complainant that on 31-3-1991 at 11-00 A.M. the accused met him on Varachha Road and when he demanded Rs. 90,000.00 from him, he immediately got enraged and stated that he has not executed any document transferring his house and he has not taken any loan from him. It is further alleged in the complaint that the accused while giving abuses further threatened that if he demanded the money, his hands and feet will not be safe. It is under these circumstances that the respondent No. 3 was constrained to file a complaint against the petitioner for the aforesaid alleged offences in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, wherein the learned Magistrate by his order dated 4-4-1991 directed the Police Inspector of the concerned area under Sec. 156(3) of the Code to inquire and report back, giving rise to the present application for quashing and setting aside the impugned order.

(3.) Heard Mr. C. J. Vin, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. Mr. Umesh Trivedi appearing for the respondent No. 1 - State. Respondent No. 3 - original complainant though duly served is absent.