ISHWARLAL PITAMBERDAS BAROT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure preferred by the petitioners for quashment of the FIR lodged by respondent No. 3 on behalf of Baroda City Cooperative Bank Ltd. , alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 418, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, with Raopura Police Station vide C. r. No. I. 383/2003.

(2.) THE facts leading to the FIR can be stated thus : the petitioners are running a business in the name of Jignesh Investments Pvt. Ltd. , and are running Hotel Rajdhani on Shivaji Road, Dandia Bazar, Vadodara. After presenting all relevant documents, the petitioners asked for cash-credit-facility. The papers having been found by the Bank to be in order, the Bank granted cash-credit-facility to the petitioners. Thereafter, since the petitioners' transaction with the Bank was regular and the petitioners were in need of further cash-credit-facility, they asked for further cash-credit-facility, which was again extended by the Bank, as the transactions of the petitioners with the Bank were regular. However, later on, because of certain commercial difficulties, the petitioners were not in a position to maintain the account regularly and the Bank, therefore, filed a Suit bearing Lavad Suit No. 848/2001 before the Board of Nominees at Vadodara for recovery of money. Subsequently, on 19th December, 2003, FIR is lodged on behalf of the Bank making the above allegations. Hence, this petition for quashing the FIR.

(3.) LEARNED advocate Mr. B. S. Patel for the petitioners submitted that a colour of criminal act is sought to be given by the Bank to a regular commercial transaction. In support of this transaction, he has read over the FIR wherein there are clear averments that cash-credit-facility was given, as the papers presented by the petitioners were in order. The facility was extended further twice, since the transactions of the petitioners with the Bank were regular. Learned advocate Mr. Patel, therefore, submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR appearing at a later stage for the alleged offences, are mere technical averments, which are contrary to the averments made in the earlier part of the FIR. 3. 1 Mr. Patel also indicated that in the Suit filed before the Board of Nominees in the year 2001, there is no allegation of ill-intention on the part of the petitioners, and the FIR, therefore, may be quashed.