VIJAY BHAVANJI THAKKAR (RUPAREL) & Anr. v. STATE OF GUJARAT & Anr.

Initially, the present petition was filed on merits. Subsequently, the bank appeared and filed an affidavit indicating that there are no outstanding dues from the applicants and that a full and final settlement has been arrived at between the bank and the applicants. The affidavits are taken on record.

Heard learned advocate Mr. Mitesh Rangras appearing for the applicants, learned Assistant R/CR.MA/16675/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Jadeja appearing for the respondent No.1 – State and learned advocate Mr. Kishan Patel for Nanavati and Company appearing for the respondent No.2.

The matter is taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Hence, RULE.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Aditya Jadeja waives the service of rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 – State and learned advocate Mr. Kishan Patel waive service of rule on behalf of the respondent No.2.

Learned advocate Mr. Mitesh Rangras, upon instructions, states that out of two draft amendments filed by the applicants, this Court may grant the draft amendment dtd. 26.09.2025. Accordingly, the draft amendment dated 26.09.2025 is granted. To be carried out forthwith.

By way of this petition, the applicants has prayed for quashing Enquiry Case No. 68 of 2002 R/CR.MA/16675/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 bearing M. Case No. 49 of 2002 registered with Naranpura Police Station as well as consequential proceedings being Criminal Case No.900137 of 2005 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.9, Metropolitan Court, Gheekanta, Ahmedabad under Sections 420, 421, 422, 424, 427, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

At the outset, it was submitted by learned advocate Mr. Mitesh Rangras that all the dues as Full and Final Settlement with Legal Expenses is already paid and no due certificate is also produced on record and he points out to the affidavit filed by Mr. Abhishek Tiwari, who is authorized officer i.e. Senior Branch Manager of the Bank of Baroda, S.P. Colony Branch, whereby he has stated that there are no dues outstanding of the bank, however the bank cannot give consent for quashing of the M. Case as once the M. Case is registered, it is the State which becomes the complainant. However, the learned advocate Mr. Kishan Patel appearing for the bank R/CR.MA/16675/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 confirms that there are no dues of the bank. Learned advocate Mr. Mitesh Rangras points out the series of orders, whereby other persons, who also availed the loan facility from the bank and against whom the M. Case is registered and upon payment of dues, the proceedings pursuant to the registration of the M. Case, were quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and therefore, learned advocate Mr. Mitesh Rangras states that in view of the fact that the present applicants also has repaid the loan amount and no due certificate is also issued in favour of the present applicants as well the applicants’s case also be considered in similar manner and all the proceedings qua present applicants pursuant to the M. Case in question are required to be quashed.

I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

In view of the affidavit of the bank produced on record and in view of the submissions made by the parties and also considering the fact that the amount has already been paid and no due R/CR.MA/16675/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 certificate has been produced, the case of the present applicants deserves to be considered. Moreover, considering the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court including the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment in case of Madan Mohan Abbot V/s State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, as well as in a judgment in case of Shiji @ Pappu & Ors. Vs.Radhika & Anr., reported in AIR 2012 SC 499, wherein it has been observed that if the continuation of the proceedings would be an empty formality then the exercise of discretion under Section 482 of the criminal Procedure Code would be justified, the present application deserves to be allowed.

Therefore, the present petition stands allowed in terms of Para No.8(B). The Enquiry Case No.68 of 2002 bearing M. Case No. 49 of 2002 registered with Naranpura Police Station as well as consequential proceedings being Criminal Case No.900137 of 2005 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.9, R/CR.MA/16675/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 Metropolitan Court, Gheekanta, Ahmedabad qua present applicants only is hereby quashed and set aside.

Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted. Pallavi (NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.