Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2033 (GUJ)

Ritesh Dilipbhai Kotak v. State of Gujarat

2016-09-12

SONIA GOKANI

body2016
ORDER : SONIA GOKANI, J. Petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:- “14. The petitioner, in view of the above-stated facts and circumstances and averments made, most respectfully prays before this Hon'ble Court: A. That Your Lordships be pleased to admit and allow this Criminal Misc. Application and further be pleased to quash the complaint being C.R NO. I-136 of 2016 dated 20.06.2016 and proceedings emanating thereunder, for the offences U/s. 406, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, lodged at Vadaj police station, Ahmedabad at Annexure-A. B. That Your Lordships, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this Application, be pleased to stay the proceedings emanating from the C.R No. I-136 of 2016 dated 20.06.2016 for the offences u/s. 406, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, lodged at Vadaj police station, Ahmedabad at Annexure A. C. Be pleased to grant any such other further relief, that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of Justice.” 2. According to the petitioner, the entire amount of dispute is in relation to the loan transaction, which was essentially recovery of the outstanding dues of the Bank. He has already paid the entire amount and no due certificate also has been issued on 27.6.2016 Learned advocate Mr. Karia submits that there is no iota of allegation nor is there any question of forgery of any of the documents. 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 also confirms from the Investigating Officer that there is no allegation of forgery. The statement of three loan transactions respectively of Rs. 15 lakhs, Rs. 17 lakhs and Rs. 17.40 lakhs of the amount have been paid back for respective loans of the respondent Bank which has issued no due certificates dated 23.6.2016, 27.6.2016 and 30.6.2016 respectively. 4. Issue notice to respondent No. 2 Bank returnable on 16.9.2016 Ms. Chetna Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice for and on behalf of respondent No. 1. There shall no coercive steps against the petitioner. 5. Investigating Officer shall record the statement of the senior bank officer in relation to the averments of payments substantiated by no due certificates of different dates. 6. Direct service is permitted today.