Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 93 (GUJ)

Vinod Babubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

2019-02-04

A.S.SUPEHIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. By way of present writ application, the applicants have prayed, inter-alia, that :- “21(B) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to quash and set aside the criminal complaint – Police Inquiry No.617/13 dated 19.12.2013 (Annexure-A) filed by the respondent nos.2 and 3 as also the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Mehsana issuing summons to the applicants and taking cognizance of the case. (C) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.808 of 2015 pending before the Court of Ld.9th Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehsana. (D) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 30.01.2015 (Annexure-B) – Police Inquiry NO.617/13 of issuance of the summons to the applicants as also the order below Exh.12 (Annexure-C) dated 05.03.2015 in Criminal Case No.808 of 2015 pending before the Court of Ld.9th Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehsana. (E) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to give the direction to Director General of Police, Gujarat to inquire into the circumstances and the reasons of effecting the order of warrant against the applicants on 21.03.2015 (Saturday) and after perusing the report of Director General of Police, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to impose exemplary cost against the Police Officers who have acted in such manner on 21.03.2015 (Saturday).” 2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present application are as under:- 2.1 The applicant no.1 is the husband of the applicant no. 2. The complainant and accused are near relatives. Babubhai Patel has two sons viz. Sureshbhai Babubhai Patel and Vinodbhai Babubhai Patel and one daughter viz. Sulekhaben. Sulekhaben got married to one Mr.Vinay Patel. Mr.Vinay Patel has brother viz. Aashutosh, who is complainant no. 1 and the wife of Aashutos, who is complainant no. 2. Vinodbhai Alpaben, Sureshbhai, Babubhai and Dahyabhai are the accused. 2.2 M/s. Suyog Sale and marketing was a partnership firm and was incorporated in the year 1999. 2.3 The applicants and the original complainants were the partners in M/s Suyog Sales and Marketing. The applicant nos.1, 2 and 3 and one Shikhaben Sharma have partnership of 68% and the complainants are partners have 32% in M/s. Suyog Sale and Marketing firm. The firm was formed in the Year 2000. 2.3 The applicants and the original complainants were the partners in M/s Suyog Sales and Marketing. The applicant nos.1, 2 and 3 and one Shikhaben Sharma have partnership of 68% and the complainants are partners have 32% in M/s. Suyog Sale and Marketing firm. The firm was formed in the Year 2000. 2.4 In the year 2007-08, the applicants moved to U.S. and have been staying there since then. 2.5 The complainant instituted Summary Suit No. 650 of 2014 at City Civil Court, Ahmedabad and Summary Civil Suit No 15 of 2013 at learned Senior Civil court, Mehsana, against the partners including the applicants claiming the amounts towards debt. These Civil Suits are pending before the concerned Civil Courts. It is stated by the applicants that they have come to know about pendency of the Civil Suits in 2015. 2.6 The complainants on 19.12.2013 filed a complaint under section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code (“Code” for short) before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehsana (“J.M.F.C.” for short). The Complaint is Police Inquiry No.617 of 2013. The complaint is filed for the offence punishable under sections 120B, 406, 413, 420, 457, 465, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short). The main allegations against the accused are that the accused borrowed money from the partnership firm of Rs.1,73,92,103/- and have not paid the same. The summons was issued on 30.01.2015. Thereafter, the same is registered as Criminal Case No.808 of 2015. 2.7. The applicant no.1 arrived in India on 18.03.2015 and the applicant no.2 arrived in India on 08.03.2015 to attend a wedding ceremony and other religious function at their daughter in law's house. It is the case of the applicants that the complainant anticipated that the applicants would attend the wedding and other religious purpose at Mr.Ratibhai Patel’s house. Therefore, the complainant with mala fide intention moved an application on 05.03.2015 for taking the matter on board and moved an application below Exh.12 to issue warrant to the accused under section 87 of the Code. The J.M.F.C. Mehsana passed an order dated 05.03.2015 to issue warrant to the accused. The respondent-police authority served the warrant and arrested the applicants on 21.03.2015 at around 12:30 pm. The applicants were arrested at the place of Mr. Ratibhai Patel during the religious ceremony of wedding i.e. Grah Shanti. 3. Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. The J.M.F.C. Mehsana passed an order dated 05.03.2015 to issue warrant to the accused. The respondent-police authority served the warrant and arrested the applicants on 21.03.2015 at around 12:30 pm. The applicants were arrested at the place of Mr. Ratibhai Patel during the religious ceremony of wedding i.e. Grah Shanti. 3. Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Archit Jani, learned advocate for the applicants submitted that the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.808 of 2015 is required to be quashed, as the dispute in the matter is civil in nature. The civil cases have been filed by the complainants at various Civil Courts. The complainants have taken recourse to the criminal complaint for harassing the applicants and misusing the Court. 3.1 Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Shalin Mehta submitted that as per the complaint, no offence is made out. There is no prime facie case against the accused. The offence punishable under sections 406 and 420 of the IPC are not in any way attracted against the applicants since the ingredients of the same are not established against the applicants. He has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case Mehul Chinubhai Choksi Vs. State Of Gujarat, 2018 (1) GLR 349 . 3.2 Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Shalin Mehta submitted that J.M.F.C., Mehsana committed a grave error in holding that there is prime facie case made out and issued process under section 204 of the Code. He has submitted that on 05.03.2015, an application was moved below Exh.12 by the complainant to issue warrant under section 87 of the Code to the accused. It is submitted that J.M.F.C., Mehsana, after assigning reasons, passed an order for issuance of warrant. It is submitted that the reasons assigned by the judge was not justified, as the summons were never served to the applicants. 3.3 Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Shalin Mehta has submitted that the applicants are U.S. citizens and have moved to U.S. since last 8 years. It is submitted that the applicant no.1 himself is the partner in M/s Suyog Sales and Marketing. The complaint is filed by the complainants in the capacity of the partner of M/s. Suyog Sales and Marketing. However, the complainants are only 32% partners of the firm while the applicants and other are 68% partners of the firm. It is submitted that the applicant no.1 himself is the partner in M/s Suyog Sales and Marketing. The complaint is filed by the complainants in the capacity of the partner of M/s. Suyog Sales and Marketing. However, the complainants are only 32% partners of the firm while the applicants and other are 68% partners of the firm. Therefore, the complainants have no locus to file any civil and criminal proceedings on behalf of the partnership firm. 3.4 Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Shalin Mehta submitted that the complaint is filed by the complainants through their Power of Attorney Holder (“PoA” for short). It is submitted that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated through the PoA. In support of his submission, reliance is placed on the decision of the High Court of BombayAurangabad Bench in the case of Roy Joseph Creado and others vs S.K.Tamissudin, 2008 (3) Mh.LJ 705 . 4. Mr.Manish Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel with Mr.Adeshara, learned advocate for the respondent nos.2 & 3 – original complainants has submitted that the accused owns many other firms and companies, and were doing various businesses at Mehsana. The details of which are as under:- (i) M/s Suraj Spices Limited, (ii) M/s Dharti Polylaminate Private Limited. (iii)M/s Patel Automobiles (iv) M/s P.K.Engineering Co. (v) M/s Prabhudas Kalidas & Co. All the above companies/firms are completely owned, controlled and managed business entities of accused at Mehsana. The complainants (present respondents) have no interest in any of the above firms. 4.1 Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Manish Bhatt submitted that there is no denial that the amount Rs.1,73,92,103/- is misappropriated. No documentary evidence has been produced in support of their statements in the application. Hence, the amount is so admitted and the amount is the amount payable on the date of filing of the complaint. It is submitted that the accused persons are guilty of defalcation, misappropriation, criminal breach of trust of Rs. 1,73,92,103/- from the firm-M/s Suyog Sales & Marketing, Mehsana – into personal accounts of family members and various firms owned, controlled, managed by the accused and their family members. 4.2 Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Manish Bhatt submitted that the applicants have committed offence of cheating, fraud, dishonesty and criminal breach of trust, misappropriation. 1,73,92,103/- from the firm-M/s Suyog Sales & Marketing, Mehsana – into personal accounts of family members and various firms owned, controlled, managed by the accused and their family members. 4.2 Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Manish Bhatt submitted that the applicants have committed offence of cheating, fraud, dishonesty and criminal breach of trust, misappropriation. All the applicants have conclusively committed criminal breach of trust and conspiracy to deceive the respondents and siphoning of a huge amount of Rs.1,73,92,103/- from the partnership firm to their personally owned companies, firms and individual accounts for personal gains and mesne profit. 4.3 Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Manish Bhatt submitted that the affairs of the firm-M/s.Suyog Sales & Marketing, Mehsana, were managed by the applicants of this application, their family members and by the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.7084 of 2015. The applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.7084 of 2015 was managing the day-to-day operations, including financial and banking operations. It is submitted that they have misappropriated, embezzled money for personal gains mesne profit, and have committed offence of cheating, dishonesty, fraud, criminal breach of trust in a collusive manner by the applicants and their family members including the applicant of Criminal Misc.Application No.7084 of 2015 and not repaying the firm's amount embezzled by them. 4.4 Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Manish Bhatt submitted that the accused have planned and siphoned away a huge amount by transferring Rs.35,98,980/- from their own Company M/s. Suraj Spices Limited to M/s Suraj Sales and Marketing, also a family owned, controlled and managed firm of the accused with an intention of not repaying the amount to its depositors and creditors. 4.5 Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Manish Bhatt submitted that there is no legal bar on institution of proceedings against the wrong done by any partner. Also, there is no legal bar that 1/3 partners cannot initiate proceedings against the wrong done by the 2/3 partners. 4.6 Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Manish Bhatt submitted that in Civil Suit No.15 of 2013 at Mehsana, there are 13 respondents which include various Companies, firms controlled, owned, managed by members of family of accused. Civil Suit No.650 of 2014 instituted at Ahmedabad has no relevance to this case, as it is filed by Vinay Nanubhai P.Patel (HUF) Vs. Suraj Spices Limited. 4.7 Finally, it is submitted by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Civil Suit No.650 of 2014 instituted at Ahmedabad has no relevance to this case, as it is filed by Vinay Nanubhai P.Patel (HUF) Vs. Suraj Spices Limited. 4.7 Finally, it is submitted by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Bhatt that the writ application is required to be set aside since the applicants have not produced the entire compilation of documents which are part of the complaint with mala fide intention. It is submitted that from the documents received under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“R.T.I” for short), it is revealed that pursuant to the notices issued by the respondents the applicants have intermittently paid the amount hence, it can be said that no delay has been caused in preferring the complaint. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the learned Counsels for the respective parties. The documents produced on record are also perused. 6. I may endevour to deal with the last submissions advanced by the Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Manish Bhatt alleging that the applicants have not produced the entire complaint with the documents, hence the present writ application deserves to set aside. Unquestionably, the applicants have produced the entire complaint dated 18.12.2013 except the documents annexed with the same. The impugned complaint incorporates all the details of accounts of the partnership firm. Along with the writ application, the applicants have annexed the memo of plaint of Summary Suit No.650 of 2014 and Summary Suit No.15 of 2013 instituted against them, which also reveal the details of the disputed amounts. Thus, the writ application cannot be dismissed since it cannot be said that the applicants have suppressed vital material facts which would directly affect the outcome of the matter. While examining the proceedings instituted under section 482 of the Code, the High Court has to examine whether the complaint is filed for harassment or with an oblique motive and the same is nothing but an abuse of process of law or prima facie offence is established against the accused. In the present writ application, sufficient material is produced by the applicants for examining the said parameters, hence the aforenoted contention does not merit acceptance. 6.1 It is not in dispute that the complainants and applicants are the close relatives and the partners of M/s.Suyog Sales and Marketing. The total share of the complainants is 32%, whereas the share of the applicants is 68%. 6.1 It is not in dispute that the complainants and applicants are the close relatives and the partners of M/s.Suyog Sales and Marketing. The total share of the complainants is 32%, whereas the share of the applicants is 68%. The complainants have alleged that the applicants, being the partners of the firm have not paid the dues of the partnership firm. It is also not in dispute that PoA has also instituted a Summary Suit No.650 of 2014 before the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad for recovery of an amount of Rs.16,01,910/-. He has also instituted Summary Civil Suit No.15 of 2013 before the Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana for recovery the amount of Rs.1,73,92,103/-. It is alleged in the suit that the said amount are outstanding dues of the complainants on the debts borrowed by the applicants from the firm. At this stage, I may with profit refer to the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Suneet Gupta Vs. Anil Triloknath Sharma with Suneet Gupta Vs. Swami Raote, 2008 (11) SCC 670 . While examining the disputes between the partnership firms, the Supreme Court has held thus: “13 The High Court, in our opinion, rightly considered the facts in their proper perspective and observed that the dispute related to settlement of accounts between principal and its agent; the principal being M/s Johnson & Johnson Ltd. and the agent being M/s K.M. Agencies (earlier) and M/s Mangla Agencies (later). The High Court also noted that it was M/s K.M. Agencies which informed the principal i.e. M/s Johnson & Johnson Ltd. that M/s K.M. Agencies had closed its business and the business was thereafter continued by M/s Mangla Agencies and all drafts be issued in favour of M/s Mangla Agencies. The High Court took note of the fact that even the complainant had informed the principal that there was dispute between the partners of M/s K.M. Agencies and hence no payment should be made to M/s Mangla Agencies till the dispute was finally resolved between the parties. That, however, does not give rise to criminal liability and entitle the complainant to initiate criminal proceedings, particularly when M/s Johnson & Johnson Ltd. substituted in the Company record name of M/s Mangla Agencies in place of M/s K.M. Agencies. That, however, does not give rise to criminal liability and entitle the complainant to initiate criminal proceedings, particularly when M/s Johnson & Johnson Ltd. substituted in the Company record name of M/s Mangla Agencies in place of M/s K.M. Agencies. The resultant effect of substitution of name was that whatever sums were due to M/s K.M. Agencies were considered to be due to M/s Mangla Agencies. 14. The High Court, in the circumstances, observed as under; "This is really a case of one partner trying to drag the principal company into a criminal litigation to recover dues which the principal had paid to the other partner. The dispute and the relationship inter se has become a tripartite one. Suneet Gupta had a dispute with Shashi Kant Mangla but instead of tackling him he got lodged F.I.R. No. 266 dated September 16, 2003 registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana, under Sections 468/406/120BIPC to pressurize the petitioners to settle the matter. It is not a clear cut and direct case in which any contractual relationship between Suneet Gupta with the company has been breached. Indeed Suneet Gupta had no direct relationship with the company. It was M/s K.M. Aencies of which he was one of the partners which had developed contractual relationship and later in June/July, 2001, M/s Mangla Agencies got substituted in place of M/s K.M. Agencies. Suneet Gupta either ignored this development or remained oblivious of it for nearly 2 years. The first notice was issued after passage of long time on March 4, 2003. This notice was clearly to drag the company into the inter se dispute between two partners." 15. The Court proceeded to state; "The complaint of Suneet Gupta and the steps taken by the police have clearly converted a tri-partite civil dispute into a criminal one and have involved the managers of the principals in a dispute between the partners of the firm." 16. The High Court, therefore, concluded that the steps taken by the complainant Suneet Gupta were in clear abuse of process of law and accordingly allowed both the petitions. 17. The High Court, therefore, concluded that the steps taken by the complainant Suneet Gupta were in clear abuse of process of law and accordingly allowed both the petitions. 17. By passing the impugned order and quashing criminal proceedings, in our opinion, the High Court has neither committed any error of law nor of jurisdiction which deserves interference in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution.” 6.2 The Apex Court in the case of (M/s) Indian Oil Corporation vs. (M/s) NEPC India Ltd and ors, 2006 SCC (6) 736 has observed thus: “While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable break down of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. this Court observed that: "It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a shortcut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which High Court is to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice". For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice". While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law. One positive step that can be taken by the courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of innocent parties, is to exercise their power under Section 250 CrPC more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant. Be that as it may.” 7. In present case unquestionably, the applicants and the complainant are the partners of M/s. M/s. Suyog Sales and Marketing, which was formed in the year 2000. The PoA of the complainants has already institute the summary suit for recovery of the amounts with interest w.e.f. 01/04/2004. Thus, there is a serious civil dispute with regard to the alleged debt as per the share of the partners in the partnership firm. It is stated in the suits that recovery of debt statement was issued time to time at the office of the applicants, and since the said amount was not paid, the suit is instituted for recovery of the outstanding amount. In paragraph 10 of the complaint, it is mentioned that the applicants have not repaid the loan of the firms despite various notices. It appears that the complaint is filed to entangle the applicants, who are residing abroad, in the criminal prosecution as and when they visit India so that they are coerced to settle the civil dispute. Thus, the dispute falls within the contour of “civil dispute” and the complaint is filed with an ulterior motive and with mala fide intention. The criminal proceedings cannot be allowed to be permitted to relapse into a weapon of harassment. Thus, by allowing the prosecution on the edifice of the impugned complaint will be an abuse of process of law. Thus, the dispute falls within the contour of “civil dispute” and the complaint is filed with an ulterior motive and with mala fide intention. The criminal proceedings cannot be allowed to be permitted to relapse into a weapon of harassment. Thus, by allowing the prosecution on the edifice of the impugned complaint will be an abuse of process of law. Hence, this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code to prevent such abuse. 7.1 It is alleged that the applicants have fraudulently siphoned away the money of the complainants. The details of the amount and the firms are incorporated in the complaint. A close scrutiny of the particulars provided in the complaint pertaining to the disputed amounts reveals that the same is bereft of the date or year about the alleged amount being misappropriated by the applicants. Though, the same reflects the amount and interest accrued on such amount, the same does not reflect when such amount is misappropriated by the applicants. It is not stated when such amounts were siphoned away by the applicants. The learned Counsel for the complainants was unable to substantiate the same. It appears that the PoA of the complainants had issued notices on 15.10.2013 and 22.10.2013 to the applicants calling upon them to clear the dues of Rs.1,74,532/- and Rs.14,24,088/- alleging that they have misappropriated by them. Thereafter, the complainants have instituted the summary suits for recovery of the amounts. However, in the plaint of summary suit i.e. Summary suit no.15 of 2013 filed before the Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana, in paragraph 14, it is mentioned that the complainants are entitled to recover the amount from 01.04.2004. The prayer clause of summary suit to made to the effect of claiming interest of the aforesaid amount w.e.f 01.04.2004. Thus, it can be safely presumed that the complainants were aware of the alleged debt or misappropriation since 2004. The complaint is also blissfully silent about the date of knowledge. For the amount which was due in 2004, the impugned complaint has been filed in the year 2013 after a period of nine years. The Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Singh (D) Through L.Rs. Vs. Gurpal Singh, 2010 (8) SCC 775 has observed thus: “20. The complaint is also blissfully silent about the date of knowledge. For the amount which was due in 2004, the impugned complaint has been filed in the year 2013 after a period of nine years. The Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Singh (D) Through L.Rs. Vs. Gurpal Singh, 2010 (8) SCC 775 has observed thus: “20. In view of the above, the Judgment and order of the High Court dated 13.02.2009 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside. However, the facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant so. The agreement to sell in favour of the appellants' father is dated 22.10.1988 and sale deed was to be executed and registered by 15.06.1989. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed Civil suit No. 60/1989 in 1989. It is difficult to believe that the appellants' father was not aware of the pendency of that suit. No explanation has been furnished as to why after expiry of the date of execution of the sale deed in favour of Kishan Singh, i.e. 15.06.1989, the appellants' father did not file the suit for specific performance which was subsequently filed on 6.2.1996 as Civil Suit No. 81/1996. Even if it is presumed that Kishan Singh was not aware of pendency of suit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, no explanation could be furnished that in case, the appellants' father filed another suit No. 1075/1996 for setting aside the decree dated 8.5.1996 in Civil Suit no.60/1989, why did he wait till the decision of that suit for lodging FIR, as the civil and criminal proceedings could have proceeded simultaneously. The FIR has been filed only on 23.07.2002 i.e. after filing the RFA No. 2488/2002 before the High Court on 15.07.2002. Therefore, there is an inordinate delay on the part of the appellants' father in filing the FIR and there is no explanation whatsoever for the same. 21. Prompt and early reporting of the occurrence by the informant with all its vivid details gives an assurance regarding truth of its version. In case, there is some delay in filing the FIR, the complainant must give explanation for the same. Undoubtedly, delay in lodging the FIR does not make the complainant's case improbable when such delay is properly explained. However, deliberate delay in lodging the complaint is always fatal. [vide: Sahib Singh Vs. In case, there is some delay in filing the FIR, the complainant must give explanation for the same. Undoubtedly, delay in lodging the FIR does not make the complainant's case improbable when such delay is properly explained. However, deliberate delay in lodging the complaint is always fatal. [vide: Sahib Singh Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1997 SC 3247 ]. 22. In cases where there is a delay in lodging a FIR, the Court has to look for a plausible explanation for such delay. In absence of such an explanation, the delay may be fatal. The reason for quashing such proceedings may not be merely that the allegations were an after thought or had given a coloured version of events. In such cases the court should carefully examine the facts before it for the reason that a frustrated litigant who failed to succeed before the Civil Court may initiate criminal proceedings just to harass the other side with mala fide intentions or the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the other party. Chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustrations by cheaply invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal court. The court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and persecution. In such a case, where an FIR is lodged clearly with a view to spite the other party because of a private and personal grudge and to enmesh the other party in long and arduous criminal proceedings, the court may take a view that it amounts to an abuse of the process of law in the facts and circumstances of the case. (vide : Chandrapal Singh & Ors. Vs. Maharaj Singh & Anr., AIR 1982 SC 1238 ; State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604 ; G. Sagar Suri & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 754 ; and Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P. & Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 531 ). Thus, the impugned complaint deserves to be set aside on the ground of delay also as the same is bereft of any particulars explaining the same. 8. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 754 ; and Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P. & Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 531 ). Thus, the impugned complaint deserves to be set aside on the ground of delay also as the same is bereft of any particulars explaining the same. 8. As regards the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel, the question stands at the PoA cannot file a criminal complaint, the same stands answered by the Larger Bench of the Apex Court in its judgment in the case of A.C. Narayanan vs. State of Maharashtra, 2013(11) Scale 360 , wherein it is held that there is no dispute that the complaint has to be filed by the complainant as contemplated by Section 200 of the Code, but the said section does not create any embargo that the attorney holder or legal representative(s) cannot be a complainant. In the present case, this Court was incapable of examining the contents of the PoA as neither side has produced the same. 9. After scaling the merits of the matter and taking into consideration the relevant facts, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned complaint does not merit sustenance. 10. Resultantly, the criminal complaint – Police Inquiry No.617/13 dated 19.12.2013 (Annexure-A) filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the proceedings of Criminal Case No.808 of 2015 pending before the Court of 9th Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehsana, and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.