SARITA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, the applicant-original accused No.8 seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this court praying for quashing of the first information report bearing C.R. No.I-3 of 2017 registered with the Ahmedabad Zone Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under sections 406, 409, 420, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 of the Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 2003.

(2.) In the first information report lodged by the respondent No.2-original first informant, it has been alleged that the accused persons, named in the first information report, floated a Company in the name of "Haldhar Reality & Enterprises Ltd.. It appears that the sister concern of the Company is Haldhar Vikas Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. The accused persons are alleged to have floated a scheme, by which, a member, who gets enrolled in the scheme, has to deposit Rs. 11,600/-every six months for a period of five years and the Company, in turn, would pay an amount of Rs. 1,83,000/- inclusive of interest. To be precise, the amount of Rs. 11,600/- was to be deposited every six months for a period of five years. The allegations in the first information report are that the accused persons explained about the scheme to the first informant in details, and on the representations made by the accused persons, the first informant got himself enrolled in the scheme and deposited the amount as stated above. The first informant was entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 1,83,000/- on or after 31.03.2017 as promised. It appears that not only the first informant has been the victim of the alleged fraud, but many other persons who had enrolled themselves as the members , have suffered at the hands of the accused persons as alleged in the first information report.

(3.) Mr. Jasani, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant is neither the director of the Company nor has anything to do with the functioning of the Company. According to the learned counsel she is a house wife since 2002. She is residing at Indore, M.P., He submitted that having regard to section 3 of the Act, 2003, no liability can be fastened upon the applicant herein. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, (2015) 4 SCC 609.