KIRTI SHANTILAL GANDHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State, whereas, learned Advocate, Mr. Thakkar, waives for respondent No.3.

(2.) It is also the case of the petitioners that Harish Textile Engineers Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at Mumbai has a huge turnover. They are also the income tax payers. The petitioners have been arraigned as accused in Criminal Case No. 4771 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Section 212 of the IPC for sheltering one of the main accused of I-C.R. No. 66 of 2016, namely Mr. Samir Shah, who is one of the partners of the M/s. Rajmoti Oils and the President of Chambers of Commerce, Rajkot. It is also the averment that the officer of the 'B' Division Police Station had visited their residence at Mumbai and they had inquired about Mr. Samir Shah. Petitioner No.1, since, is unfit to travel to Rajkot, his statement was recorded at his residence and subsequently, he was asked to attend 'B' Division Police Station along with petitioner No.2, who was arrested and bailed out later on, in connection with the offence under Section 212 of the IPC.

(3.) This Court has heard the learned Advocate, Mr. Panchal, with learned Advocate, Mr. Dave, for the petitioners, who has urged before this Court that what is the requirement for the offence under Section 212 of the IPC to be attracted is that the petitioners should be either having knowledge or there may be a reason to believe that they were in know of some pendency of the criminal proceedings against the co-accused, who had been allegedly sheltered by them. The petitioners are the residents of Mumbai and would have no connection with our contact at Rajkot, and therefore, it is nearer to impossible for them to have come to know of the crime having been registered at Rajkot against their family friend. The investigating agency also does have any material to prove any of the allegations levelled against the petitioners, as the entire story is false and fabricated. The continuation of the FIR against the present petitioners is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of law. It is also the undue harassment and hardship to the petitioners when no material virtually exists in the papers of charge-sheet, indicating anything against either of them. The Court is, therefore, requested to quash the proceedings arising out of the Criminal Case No. 4771 of 2017, which is committed under Section 209 of the Code yet, so far as the supplementary charge-sheet is concerned. It is also urged that the co-accused was pursuing his legal remedy of anticipatory bail from 15.03.2016 to 04.05.2016, and therefore, he cannot be said to have been absconding and therefore, any shelter given to a person, who is merely alleged of committing an offence that per se cannot be a ground for the Court to attract the provisions of Section 212 of the IPC.