KENAL VRAJMOHAN SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of First Information Report (F.I.R.) being C.R. No.I60 of 2017 registered with Mahila Police Station, Ahmedabad City, Dist. Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under sections 499, 376 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

(2.) The facts of the case as are mentioned in the memo of application are as under:

(3.) Learned advocate Mr.Abichandani appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are made with an ulterior motive for harassing the petitioner and apparently with mala fide intention of extorting / extracting money. He further submitted that the first informant has chosen to suppress vital aspects that : (i) the first informant had initially threatened the petitioner to involve him in a false complaint; (ii) thereafter, the first informant did not want to pursue the complaint / application, because there was a settlement arrived at between the parties, which was reduced in writing dated 08.07.2016 (at Annexure-B to the petition); (iii) a separate agreement was also drawn on the same day i.e. 08.07.2016, inter alia, indicating that there was no electronic data. It appears that it was only to the subjective satisfaction of the first informant that the said separate assertion was narrated in the said agreement; (iv) the first informant subsequently filed an application before the Sola High Court Police Station, Ahmedabad - Application No.2419 of 2016; (v) pursuant to the said application, the Thaltej Police Chowky of Sola High Court Police Station had recorded the statement of the first informant on 27.07.2016 (at Annexure-D to the petition); (vi) pursuant to the aforesaid statement, officials of the Thaltej Police Chowky had also recorded statement of the petitioner on 27.07.2016 (at Annexure-E to the petition); (vii) in August, 2017, the first informant had visited the office as well as the residential premises of the petitioner and tired to contact the petitioner; (viii) there was mutual agreement between the parties and even if the same was admitted for the sake of argument, the same was purely consensual. In fact the entire story is fabricated and hence, the same is not admitted. The allegations leveled against the petitioner till date are false and are in fact for obvious reasons that the same are made with a mala fide intention of harassing the petitioner.