STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. GIJUBHAI MOTIBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE parties being same and the matters having arisen from same criminal litigation, all the matters were heard together by consent and are disposed by this common judgment. Special Criminal Application no. 2208 of 2007 is filed by the accused person with the prayer to quash the complaint bearing C. R. No. 114 of 2006 along with C. R. Nos. 6 to 15 of 2007 registered with Modasa Town Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 465, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("ipc" for short) and section 13 (1) (g) of the Prevention of Corruption act, 1988 ("pc Act" for short), as far as the petitioner is concerned.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he is serving as Inspector of Motor Vehicle, Modasa under the control of Regional Transport Officer. His duty was to inspect vehicles for registration after application in the prescribed form was examined by clerk and taxes and registration fees were accepted by the cashier. Admittedly, some forged sale letters of Tata motors had been produced for registration of vehicles and he had informed the Regional Transport Officer in that regard. When, as custodian of the record of registration, he checked up registration of vehicles in the last ten years, he found such forged and bogus sale letters pursuant to which ten complaints were filed and registered and his name was not mentioned in the complaint, but an agent was alleged to have forged such documents in collusion with owners of the vehicles. However, upon an affidavit being filed by the agent, the allegations against the petitioner and two other clerks were made to implicate him in the criminal case.

(3.) SINCE the petitioner's name is not even mentioned in the F. I. R. , which is sought to be quashed, and the investigation is admittedly not completed, the prayer of the petitioner to quash the complaint is ex facie misconceived and untenable. As observed by the Supreme Court in mohmad MALEK MONDAL V. PRANJAL BARDALAI [ (2005) 10 SCC 608], the contention that there was no material against the petitioner since the only material on record was inadmissible retracted statement allegedly made by the co-accused, could not be accepted at the stage when only cognizance was taken and the petitioner was yet to be interrogated. As can be seen from the other surrounding facts discussed hereinbelow in relation to the criminal revision applications of the State praying, in effect, for remanding the petitioner to police custody, the petition cannot be allowed and hence it is dismissed in limine.