JOSEPH SALVARAJ A.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

                   [2011) 8 S.C.R. 815


                  JOSEPH SALVARAJ A.                           A
                             v.
               STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
            (Criminal Appeal No. 1251 of 2011)
                       JULY 4, 2011
                                                               B
  [DALVEER BHANDARI AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.]

      Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - FIR -
 Quashing of - FIR against appellant complaining that he had
committed offences under ss.406, 420 and 506(1) of /PC - C
 Complainant stated that he had got in touch with the appellant
 so as to extend the benefit of Appellant's Channel "God TV"
 to his other brethren residing at Ahmedabad - For the said
 purposes, he had met the owner of Siti Cable in Ahmedabad
 and negotiated a settlement for Rs. 10 lacs on behalf of the D
 Appellant's Company as the fee to be paid to Siti cable by
 Appellant for telecast of channel "God TV" in Ahmedabad -
.Grievance of the Complainant that despite the telecast of
 "God TV", the Appellant, as promised, failed to pay a sum of
 Rs. 10 lacs to the owners of Siti cables - Held: The matter E
 appears to be purely civil in nature - There appears to be no
 cheating or a dishonest inducement for the delivery of property
 or breach of trust by the appellant - A purely civil dispute, is
 sought to be given a colour of a criminal offence to wreak
 vengeance against the Appellant - The case in hand does F
 not fall in that category where cognizance of the offence could
 have been .taken by the court, at least after having gone
 through the FIR, which discloses only a civil dispute - The
 Appellant cannot be allowed to go through the rigmarole of a
 criminal prosecution for long number of years, even when
 admittedly a civil suit has already been filed against the G
 Appellant and Complainant and is still subjudice - Also the
 complainant has not been able to show that at any material
 point of time there was any contract, much less any privity of
                            815                                H
    816    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011) 8 S.C.R.


A contract between the Appellant and Complainant - There was
  no cause of action to even lodge an FIR against the Appellant
  as neither the Complainant had to receive the money nor he
  was in any way instrumental to telecast "God TV" in the central
  areas of Ahmedabad - He appears to be totally a stranger to
B the same - Appellant's prosecution would only lead to his
  harassment and humiliation, which cannot be permitted in
  accordance with the principles of law - The prosecution of the
  Appellant for commission of the alleged offences would be
  clear abuse of the process of law - The FIR under the
c circumstances deserves to be quashed at the threshold and
  all criminal proceedings emanating therefrom also stand
  quashed - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.406, 420 and 506(1).

         Respondent No.4-complainant was working in
    Ahmedabad. He went to Hyderabad at his wife's place
D   where he had the occasion to watch the appellant's
    religious channel "God TV". On his return to Ahmedabad,
    he approached cable operator 'L', owner of Siti Cable and
    requested him to have this channel also in the bouquet
    of channels offered by him. He also contacted the
E   appellant's company dir.ectly, requesting it to allow
    broadcasting of "God TV" in certain areas of Ahmedabad
    through Siti Cable, Ahmedabad. Eventually, with the aid
    and enterprise of 'L', they were able to commence
    broadcasting of "God TV" in the eastern zone of
F   Ahmedabad. According to respondent no.4, 'L' (and 2
    other cable operators) had agreed to broadcast, "God
    TV" at Ahmedabad, after the appellant had agreed to pay
    a sum of Rs. 10 lacs to Mr. 'L'. However, there was no
    written agreement between Mr. 'L' and the Appellant.
G   Furthermore, there was no Agreement between
    complainant and either of the aforesaid two parties.
    According to him, on his own, he had acted only as a
    mediator. From time to time, respondent no.4 kept
    reminding the appellant about payment of the amount of
H   Rs. 10 lacs to 'L', .but the said amount as agreed to
                                                            ...;
  JOSEPH SALVARAJ A. v. STATE OF GUJARAT &              817
                   ORS.

between 'L' and the appellant remained unpaid. The             A
respondent no.4 ultimately sent a notice to which the
Appellant replied, denying all accusations and liabilities.
     The Respondent No.4 therafter lodged an FIR against
the appellant complaining therein that the appellant had       B
committed offences under Section 406, 420 and 506(1) of
IPC. After completion of the investigation, as per the said
FIR, the appellant was arrested for commission of the said
offences. The appellant filed an application under Section
437 of CrPC for grant of bail to him. The same was             C
granted to him subject to conditions. The appellant,
thereafter, filed petition under Section 482 of CrPC in the
High Court, with a prayer for quashing of the FIR and to
stay further investigation in the case. The said application
came to be considered before the Single Judge. By that
time, charge sheet was already filed before the                D
Competent Criminal Court. Thus, the Single Judge, was
of the opinion that it was not a fit case to be entertained
and refused to hear the petition on merits, even though
the appellant was given liberty to file an application for
his discharge before the Trial Court. Thus the Appellant's     E
petition was dismissed and interim order granted in his
favour was vacated. The Order passed by the Single
Judge of the High Court in Appellant's Criminal
ApplicatiQn was challenged in the instant appeal.
                                                               F
    The appellant contended that even after going
through the FIR, no case under Section 406 or 420 of the
IPC was made out; that the FIR was filed by a person
who was indisputably not a contracting party and at best
by his own admission, had acted only as a mediator, and        G
had no cause of action to file the complaint; that the
complainant failed to pr_oduce any evidence worth the
name in support of his allegation which was legally
acceptable that the contract was concluded, whereunder
the appellant was obliged to pay a sum of Rs. 1Olacs to        H
'L'.
    818      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2011] 8 S.C.R


A         Allowing the appeal, the Court
       HELD:1. In the instant case, bare perusal of the FIR
  lodged by the complainant, would indicate that he had
  got in touch with the appellant so as to extend the benefit
  of Appellant's Channel "God TV" to his other brethren
8 residing at Ahmedabad. For the said purposes, he had
  met the owner of Siti Cable in Ahmedabad and negotiated
  a settlement for a sum of Rs. 1O lacs on behalf of the
  Appellant's Company as the fee to be paid to Siti cable
  by Appellant for telecast of channel "God TV" in
C Ahmedabad. Further grievance of the Complainant was
  that despite the telecast of "GOD TV", the Appellant, as
  promised, failed to pay a sum of Rs. 10 lacs to the owners
  of Siti cables. This is what has been mentioned in
  nutshell in the complainant's FIR. This Court has grave
D doubt whether on such averments and allegations, even
  a prima facie case of the aforesaid offences could be
  made out against the present appellant. [Para 20] [825-
  D-G]
E      2. Criminal breach of trust is defined under Section
  405 of the IPC and 406 thereof deals with punishment to
  be awarded to the accused, if found guilty for
  commission of the said offence i.e. with imprisonment for
  a term which may extend to thrP.e years, or with fine, or
F with both. Section 420 of the IPC deals with cheating and
  dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Cheating has
  been defined under Section 415 of the IPC to constitute
  an offence. Under the aforesaid section, it is inbuilt that
  there has to be a dishonest intention from the very
  beginning, which is sine qua non to hold the accused
G guilty for commission of the said offence. Categorical and
  microscopic examination of the FIR certainly does not
  reflect any such dishonest intention ab initio on the part
  of the appellant. Section 506 ·of the IPC deals with
  punishment for criminal intimidation. Criminal
H intimidation, insult and annoyance have been define" in
   JOSEPH SALVARAJ A. v. STATE OF GUJARAT &              819
                    ORS.

  Section 503 of the IPC but the FIR lodged by complainant      A
  does not show or reflect that any such threat to cause
  injury to person or of property was ever given by the
  Appellant ·to the Complainant. Thus, from the general
· conspectus of the various sections under which the
  Appellant is being charged and is to be prosecuted would      B
  show that the same are not made out even prima facle
  from the Complainant's FIR. Even if the charge sheet had
  been filed, the Single Judge of the High Court could have
  still examined whether the offences alleged to have been
  committed by the Appellant were prima facie made out          c
  from the complainant's FIR, charge sheet, documents etc.
  or not. [Paras 21 to 24] [825-H; 826-A-F]
                                     '
      3. The matter appears to be purely civil in nature.
 There appears .to be no cheating or a dishonest
 inducement for the delivery of property or breach of trust     D
 by the appellant. The present FIR is an abuse of process
 of law. The purely civil dispute, is sought to be given a
 colour of a criminal offence to wreak vengeance against
 the Appellant. It does not meet the strict standard of proof
 required to sustain a criminal accusation. In such type of     E
 cases, it is necessary to draw a distinction between civil
 wrong and criminal wrong. In Bhajan Lal case seven
 cardinal principles were carved out before cognizance of
 offences, said to have been committed, by the accused
 was taken. The case in hand does not fall in that category     F
 where cognizance of the offence could have been taken
 by the court, at least after having gone through the F.l.R.,
 which discloses only a civil dispute. [Paras 25 to 27] [826-
 G-H; 827-A-B-E]
    Devendra v. State of U.P. 2009 (7) SCC 495: 2009 (7)        G
 SCR 872 and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 (Suppl)
 1 SCC 335: 1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 259 - referred to.
     4. The Appellant cannot be allowed to go through the
 rigmarole of a criminal prosecution for long number of         H
    820     . SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011] 8 S.C.R.

A years, even when admittedly a civil suit has already been
   filed against the Appellant and Complainant-Respondent
   No. 4, and is still subjudice. In the said suit, the Appellant
   is at liberty to contest the same on grounds available to
   him in accordance with law as per the leave granted by
s Trial Court. Also the complainant has not been able to
   show that at any material point of time there was any
   contract, much less any privity of contract between the
   Appellant and Respondent No. 4-the Complainant. There
   was no cause of action to even lodge an FIR against the
c Appellant as neither the Complainant had to receive the
  ·money nor h.e was in any way instrumental to telecast
   "God TV" in the central areas of Ahmedabad. He appears
   to be totally a stranger to the same. Appellant's
   prosecution would only lead to his harassment and
   humiliation, which cannot be permitted in accordance
0
   with the principles of law. [Para 28) (827-F-H; 828-A-B]
       5. Looking to the matter from all angles, it is clear that
  the prosecution of the Appellant for commission of the
  alleged offences would be clear abuse of the process of
E law. The FIR under the circumstances deserves to be
  quashed at the threshold. The order of the Single Judge
  of the High Court is set aside. The FIR lodged by
  Respondent No. 4- Complainant stands quashed and all
  criminal proceedings emanating therefrom also stand
F quashed. [Paras 29, 30) (828-C-DJ
                        Case Law Reference:
          2009(7) SCR 872           Para 26         referred to
          1990(3) Suppl. SCR 259 Para 27            referred to
G
        CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No.1251 of2011.
      From the Judgment & Order dated 11.01.2007 of the High
  Court of Gujarat at Ahmadabad in Special Criminal Application
H No. 1977 of 2006.
   JOSEPH SALVARAJ A. v. STATE OF GUJARAT &                    821
                   ·ORS.

      Huzefa Ahmedi, Shamik Sanjanwala, Meenakshi Arora for            A
 the Appellant.

     Aparna Bhat, P. Ramesh Kumar, Jesal (for Hemantika
 wahi) for the Respondents.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                       B

      DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Leave granted.
      2. Respondent No. 4 - complainant, Living Water Finney,
 lodged an FIR on 05.09.2006 at 22.15 hrs with Odhav Police            c
 Station, Ahmadabad City, complaining therein that the Appellant
 has committed offences under Section 406, 420 and 506(1)
 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter shall be referred to as
 'IP~').

        3. Respondent No.4 was working as Administrative Officer       D
   in "Amaaru Family Education Trust" at Ahmadabad and
   claimed that he has been residing there, leading life peacefully.
   He also stated that Shri Dharmendra P. Rami@ Lalabhai was
   running business of Siti Cable in Bapi Nagar area at
. Ahmadabad, was known to him for many years and both of               E
 · them enjoyed good relations with each other.

      4.'Sometime in the year 2005, complainant had gone to
 Hyderabad at his wife's place where he had the occasion to
 watch "God TV" which influenced him deeply and profoundly             F
 touching his holy spirit. He wanted to share his experience with
 the Christian community of Ahmadabad so that they may also
 be blessed through this religious channel. On his return to
 Ahmadabad, he approached cable operator Mr. Lalabhai,
 owner of Siti Cable as mentioned above and requested him
 to have this channel also in the bouquet of channels offered by       G
 him. He also contacted the Appellant's Company directly,
 requesting it to allow broadcasting of "God TV" in certain areas
 of Ahmadabad through Siti Cables, Ahmadabad.

      5. Eventually, with the aid and enterprise of Mr. Lalabhai,      H
    822      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2011] 8 S.C.R.


A they were able to commence broadcasting of "GOD TV" in the
  eastern zone of Ahmedabad.

          6. Initially, Mr. Lalabhai quoted Rs. 30 lacs for persuading
    all the three operators to' commence the telecast of "GOD TV"
    in their respective areas in Ahmedabad but the same was
8
    settled for Rs. 10 lacs. Thus, according to the complainant, Mr.
    Lalabhai (and 2 other cable operators) had agreed to
    broadcast, religious channel "God TV" at Ahmedabad, after the
    Appellant had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 1O lacs to Mr.
    Lalabhai.
c
        7. However, it appears that there was no Agreement in
  writing executed and entered into between Mr. Lalabhai and
  the Appellant. Furthermore, there has not been any Agreement
  between complainant and either of the aforesaid two parties.
D According to him, on his own, he had acted only as a mediator.

       8. From time to time, the Complainant kept reminding the
  appellant about payment of the amount of Rs. 10 lacs to Mr.
  Lalabhai. But according to the Complainant, the appellant
E deliberately avoided his communications. In the meanwhile, the
  cable operators who had started telecasting "God TV" were
  also pressurizing the Complainant for the said amount.

       9. As mentioned heretnabove for about five months, they
  enjoyed watching "God TV" without any disruption but thereafter
F the reception signals of the said channel developed some
  technical snag. Thus, from October 2005, on account of poor
  quality of receivers, the reception was also not clear and was
  blurred. He once again contacted the·Appellant who agreed to
  send receiver to the Complainant. After having received the said
G receiver, it was delivered to Mr. Lalabhai but as per the
  Complainant's version, by that time the amount of Rs. 10 lacs
  as agreed to between Mr. Lalabhai and the present Appellant
  was still not paid. Having failed to elicit a verbal response, the ·
  Complainant thereafter wrote a series of letters and sent e-
H mails to the Appellant, ultimately culminating in a notice dated
  JOSEPH SALVARAJ A. v. STATE OF GUJARAT &                    823
          ORS. [DEEPAK VERMA, J.]

21.06.2006; to which the-Appellant replied on 18.07.2006,            A
4enying all accusations and liabilities. Then the problem started
and Respondent No. 4 lodged· the FIR against the Appellant
as mentioned hereinabove.

    10. After completion of the investigation, as per the FIR
                                                                     8
lodged by the Complainant on 05.09.2006, the Appellant was
arrested at Chennai for c0mmission of the said offences on
17 .11.2006. He was thus constrained to file an application under
Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
{hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Code') for grant of bail   C
to. him. The same was granted to him on the conditions
mentioned in the order dated 22.11.2006.

      11. The Appellant, thereafter, was constrained to file the
petition under Section 482 of the Code in the High Court of
Gujarat at Ahmedabad, with a prayer for quashing of the FIR          D
bearing C.R. No. 1-371/2006 registered with Odhav Police
Station and to stay further investigation in the case. The said
application came to be considered before the learned Single
Judge on 11.1.2007. By that time, charge sheet was already
filed before the Competent Criminal Court. Thus, learned Single      E
Judge, was of the opinion that it was not a fit case to -be
entertained and refused to hear the petition on merits, even
though the appellant was given liberty to file an application for
his discharge before the Trial Court. It may be noted that even
in its impugned order the learned Single Judge has                   F
emphasized that he had not considered the case on merits.
Thus the Appellant's petition was dismissed and interim order
granted in his favour was vacated.

      12. Now the Order dated 11.01.2007 passed by the
learned Single Judge of the High Court in Appellant's Criminal       G
Application No. 1977 of 2006, is subject matter of challenge
in this Appeal.

    13. We have accordingly heard Mr. Huzefa Ahmedi with
Mr. Shamik Sanjanwala for the Appellants Ms. Jesel, for              H
    824     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 8 S.C.R.


A   respondent No 1,2 and 3 and Ms. Aparna ·Bhat for respondent
    No.4 - Complainant at length. Perused the record.

       14. Learned counsel for the Appellant contended that even
  after going through the FIR, no case under Section 406 or 420
  of the Penal Code was made out. The FIR was filed by a
8
  person who is indisputably not a contracting party and at best
  by his own admission, had acted only as a mediator, and had
  no cause of action to file the complaint. He has failed to produce
  any evidence worth the name in support of his allegation and
C legally acceptable that the contract was concluded, where under
  the Appellant was obliged to pay a sum of Rs. 10 lacs to Mr.
  Lalabhai.

        15. The allegations in the F.l.R. clearly discloses a civil
  dispute between the parties and the FIR seems to have been
D filed only with an intention to harass and humiliate the Appellant.
  This was a pre-emptive move by the Complainant.

       16. A summary Civil Suit under Order 37 Rule II of Code
  of Civil Procedure {hereinafter to be referred as 'CPC') has
E already been filed by Dharmendra P. Rami@ Lalabhai against
  the Appellant and the Respondent No.4, Complainant herein,
  before the City Civil Court, Ahmadabad claiming a sum of Rs.
  10 lacs together with interest thereon. In the ~aid suit an
  unconditional leave to defend has already been granted to the
  Appellant .and the matter is still pending. In the light of the
F aforesaid submissions, it was contended that it is a flt case
  where the FIR deserves to be quashed otherwise the same
  would amount to abuse of the process of law.

       17. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
G Respondents especially Respondent No. 4, contended that
  intention to cheat the complainant was clearly made out by the
  action of the Appellant, ultimately resulting in lodging of F.l.R.
  against Appellant and Respondent No.4 both. Learned Single
  Judge was fully justified in rejecting the Appellant's Petition as
H it was not a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction conferred on the
             ~
  JOSEPH SALVARAJ A. v. STATE OF GUJARAT &                   825
          ORS'. [DEEPAK VERMA, J.]

court under Section 482 of the CrPC. Thus, a prayer was made        A
that no case for interference was made out and the Appeal be
dismissed.

     18. In the light of the rival contentions we have to examine
whether cognizance of the offences could have been taken by         8
the Competent Criminal Court in the light of the averments made
by the complainant in the FIR.

      19. Even though the learned counsel appearing for
contesting parties have cited numerous authorities in support
of their respective contentions, but in view of the well settled    C
legal position of law, by long catena of cases of this Court, on
this and related points, we are not dealing with.each one of them
separately and independently. However, the ratio and gist of
these would be reflected in our order.
                                                              '     D
    20. In the instant case, we have to first examine whether
any of the ingredients under Section 406, 420 or 506 (1) of the
IPC have been made out to enable the Court to take
-cogniz~mce thereof against the appellant or not. Bare perusal
of the FIR lodged by the complainant, would indicate that he        E
had got in touch with the appellant so as to extend the benefit
of Appellant's Channel "GOD TV" to his other brethren residing
at Ahmadabad. For the said purposes, he had met the owner
of Siti Cable, Bapi Nagar in Ahmadabad and negotiated a
settlement for a sum of Rs. 10 lacs on behalf of the Appellant's    F
Company as the fee to be paid to Siti cable by Appellant for
telecast of channel "God TV" in Ahmadabad. Further grievance
of the Complainant was that despite the telecast of "GOD TV",
the Appellant, as promised, failed to pay a sum of Rs. 10 lacs
to the owners of Siti cables. This is what has been mentioned
in nutshell in the complainant's FIR. We have grave doubt, in       G
our mind whether on such averments and allegations, even a
prima facie case of the aforesaid offences could be made out
against the present appellant. ·                                        4

     21. Criminal breach of trust is defined under Section 405      H
    826      SUPREME COURT Rj::PORTS                (2011) 8 S.C.R.


A   of the IPC and 406 thereof deals with punishment to be
    awarded to the accused, if found guilty for commission of the
    said offence i.e. with imprisonment for a term which may
    extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

       22. Section 420 of the IPC deals with cheating and
8
  dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Cheating has been
  defined under Section 415 of the IPC to constitute an offence.
  Under the aforesaid section, it is inbuilt that there has to be a
  dishonest intention from the very beginning, which is sine qua
  non to hold the accused guilty for commission of the said
C offence. Categorical and microscopic examination of the FIR
  certainly does not reflect any such dishonest intention ab initio
  on the part of the.appellant.

       23. Section 506 of tha IPC deals with punishment for
D criminal intimidation. Criminal intimidation, insult and
  annoyance have been defined in Section 503 of the IPC 'but
  the FIR lodged by complainant does not show or reflect that any
  such threat to cause injury to person or of property was ever
  given by the Appellant to the Complainant.
E
       24. Thus, from the general conspectus of the various
  sections under which the Appellant is being charged and is to
  be prosecuted would show that the same are not made out even
  prima facie from the Complainant's FIR. Even if the charge
F sheet had been filed, the learned Single Judge could have ·still
  examined whether the offences alleged to have been
  comm.itted by the Appellant were prima facie made out from
  the complainant's FIR, charge sheet, documents etc. or not.

       25. In our opinion, the matter appears to be purely civil in
G nature. There appears to be no c.heating or a dishonest
  inducement for the delivery of property or breach of trust by the
  Appellant. The present FIR is an abuse of process of law. The
  purely .civil dispute, is sought to be given a colour of a criminal
  offence to wreak vengeance against the Appellant. It does not
H
  JOSEPH SALVARAJ A. v. STATE OF GUJARAT &                    827
          ORS. [DEEPAK VERMA, J.]

meet the strict standard of proof required to sustain a criminal      A
accusation..                        ' --

      26. In such type of cases, it is necessary to draw a
distinction between civil wrong and criminal wrong as has been
succinctly held by this Court in Devendra Vs. State of U.P.,          B
2009 (7) sec 495, relevant part thereof is reproduced
herein below:

     "A distinction must be made between a civil wrong and a
     criminal wrong. When dispute between the parties
     constitute only a civil wrong and not a criminal wrong, the      C
     courts would not permit a person to be harassed although
     no case for taking cognizance of the offence has been
     made out."

     27. In fact, all these questions have been elaborately           0
discussed by this Court in the most oft quoted judgment
reported in 1992 (Suppl) 1 SCC 335 State of Haryana Vs.
Bhajan Lal, where seven cardinal principles have been carved
out before cognizance of offences, said to have been
committed, by the accused is taken. The case in hand                  E
unfortunately does not fall in that category where cognizance
of the offence could have been taken by the court, at least after
having gone through the F.l.R., which discloses only a civil
dispute.

     28. The Appellant cannot be allowed to go through the            F
rigmarole of a criminal prosecution for long number of years,
even when admittedly a civil suit has already been filed against
the Appellant and Complainant-Respondent No. 4, and is still
subjudice. In the said suit, the Appellant is at liberty to contest
the same on grounds available to him in accordance with law           G
as per the leave granted by Trial Court. It may also be pertinent
to mention here that the complainant has not been able to show
that at any material point of time there was any contract, much
less any privity of contract between the Appellant and
Respondent No. 4 - the Complainant. There was no cause of             H
    828      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011) 8 S.C.R.

' A action to even lodge an FIR against the Appellant   asneither
    the Complainant had to receive the money nor he was in any
    way instrumental to telecast "GOD TV' in the central areas of
    Ahmedabad. He appears to be totally a stranger to the same.
    Appellant's prosecution would only lead to his harassment and
  8 humiliation, which cannot be permitted in accordance with the
    principles of law.

       '29. Thus, looking to the matter from all angles, we are of
   the considered opinion that the prosecution of the Appellant for
   commission of the alleged offences would be clear abuse of
 C the process of law.

         30. The FIR under the circumstances deserves to be
   quashed at the threshold. We accordingly do so. The Appeal
   is, therefore, allowed. The order of learned Single Judge is set
 D aside. The FIR dated 05.09.2006 lodged by Respondent No.
   4 - Complainant with Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad stands
   quashed and all criminal proceedings emanating therefrom
   also stand quashed. The parties to bear their respective costs.

    8.8.B.                                        Appeal allowed.