In a significant ruling by the Gujarat High Court, the FIR in the case of Vishal Finance Firm v. State of Gujarat has been quashed. The petitioner, Vishal Finance Firm, was engaged in a money lending business and had a valid license. The dispute arose over a bounced cheque incident, but no illegal lending of money was established. The High Court’s decision to quash the FIR has brought resolution to the matter, emphasizing the importance of following legal procedures in such cases.
Arguments
- The petitioner asserts that he was not involved in the alleged crime and did not commit any offense.
- It is claimed that the petitioner lent money to the original complainant in 2019, with a cheque dated 22.11.2019 worth Rs.50,000 and Rs.20,000 in cash on 10.12.2019.
- A promissory note was executed in favor of the petitioner by the original complainant, promising to repay at an 18% yearly interest rate.
- While the original complainant initially paid some interest, they later failed to continue making interest payments.
- Complainant issued a cheque to Vishal Finance Firm which bounced due to insufficient funds.
- The petitioner is engaged in money lending business under the name Vishal Finance Firm with a valid license.
- No illegal lending of money is indicated as the petitioner has a valid license.
- No offense is established in relation to the bounced cheque incident.
Analysis
- Petitioner has no past criminal antecedents and there is no threat administered to the respondent.
- The question of lending money illegally does not arise.
- Parties have settled the dispute amicably during the proceedings.
- Legal heirs of the original complainant have confirmed the settlement and have no objection to quashing the proceedings.
- Exercise of power under Section 482 of the CrPC is warranted in this case.
- Inherent power should not be used to stifle a legitimate prosecution.
- Settlement between the parties occurred during the pendency of the petition.
- Learned APP opposes the petition citing seriousness of the offence.
- Petitioner is engaged in money lending with a valid license.
- No permission was sought from the competent authority prior to filing the charge-sheet.
- The nature of the offences is private and not against the State.
- High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision when facts are incomplete and issues are of magnitude.
- The High Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the proceedings based on Supreme Court decisions.
- Continuation of criminal proceedings would cause unnecessary harassment to the petitioner/s.
- The trial following the mutual settlement between the parties would be a futile exercise.
- The impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings were quashed and set aside.
- In the case of criminal intimidation, the intention to cause alarm must be established for the offence to be made out.
- The definition of ‘criminal intimidation’ under Section 503 IPC was referenced.
- Threat of injury, or intention to cause alarm must be present in the case of criminal intimidation.
- The definition of ‘Criminal intimidation’ indicates the act of threatening to cause injury to person, reputation, or property with the intent to cause alarm or compel actions.
- The petition was allowed, and the impugned FIR along with all consequential proceedings were quashed and set aside.
Decision
- Direct service is permitted.
- Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only.
- Release the petitioner/s forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case.
Case Title: VISHAL KIRTIBHAI THAKKAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCR.A/8068/2021
