The State of Gujarat - Appellants @HASH Chirag Suryakant Shah and 1 - Opponents/Respondents

Mr. M.R. Shah, J. - Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned 3rd Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as "trial Court") in Criminal Case No. 8093/2004 by which the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents herein � original accused for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 171 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"), the State has preferred the present criminal appeal.

2. Facts leading to the present criminal appeal and the prosecution case in nut-shell are as under :

2.1. One Vipul Sevantilal Shah lodged a complaint against the respondents herein � original accused before the Adalaj Police Station being I-CR No. 238/2004 alleging inter alia that though the original accused No. 1 (respondent No. 1 herein) was not working in the office of the Forest Department, Mehsana, he forged the documents by preparing the false identity card of the said department. It was further the case on behalf of the original complainant that the original accused took him in confidence and stated that he is having good relations/influence in the Sales Tax as well as Income Tax Department and he took Rs. 1,50,000/- from him for getting a Government job. It was alleged that thereafter instead of getting the job, he used Rs. 1,50,000/- for his personal use out of which he returned Rs. 40,000/- and for rest of the amount i.e. Rs. 1,10,000/-, he issued the cheques drawn on Gandhinagar Sahakari Bank, Chandkheda Branch though there was no balance in his account. Thus, it was the case on behalf of the original complainant/prosecution that by creating forged documents/identity card posing himself to be the officer working in the Forest Department gave false promise and got Rs. 1,10,000/- by giving false promise of giving job in the Government and thereby the accused have committed the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 171 read with Section 114 of the IPC. The aforesaid FIR was investigated by Shri Kansingh Ratansingh Pagi (PW-9), PSI, Chandkheda Police Station. Even the complaint given by the original complainant was recorded by Kansingh Pagi (PW-9). He recorded the statements of the concerned witnesses. He arrested the respondent No. 1 herein � original accused Chirag on 03.12.2004. He recovered the identity card with photograph of the accused and with his signature with a stamp of Forest Department at the instance of the accused and from his room (Exh. 41). He also held the necessary investigation from the office of the Forest Department and it was found that no such person like the accused was serving in the office of Forest Department mentioned in the said I-Card and it was found that no such office of the Forest Department at the address mentioned in the I-Card was in existence. He obtained the certificate to that effect from one Harshadbhai Modi, Superintendent of Forest Department. Thereafter, he arrested the original accused No. 2 Kashmiraben on 06.12.2004. After conclusion of the investigation and having found prima facie case against the accused, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet against both the accused in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gandhinagar, which was numbered as Criminal Case No. 8093/2004. That the learned trial Court framed the charge against the accused for the offences 406, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 171 read with Section 114 of the IPC at Exh.2 on 28.01.2005. The accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, both of them came to be tried by the learned trial Court for the aforesaid offences.

2.2. To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution examined the original complainant (PW-1) at Exh.5. The examination-in-chief of the PW-1 was recorded on 11.02.2005, which was part recorded on that day. That thereafter for recording the deposition/examination in chief of PW-1, the matter was adjourned five to six times and for whatever reason further deposition of PW-1 was not recorded. That on 09.05.2005, the original complainant and original accused Nos. 1 and 2 submitted the purshis at Exh.12 and requested to adjourn the matter for two weeks on the ground that talks for settlement between the complainant and the accused are going on. Again another application Exh.13 was submitted by the complainant as well as accused to adjourn the matter as the talks for settlement are going on. Again the learned trial Court adjourned the matter to 06.06.2005. Again application Exh.14 was submitted by the complainant as well as the accused again to adjourn the matter for 14 days, again submitting that talks for settlement are going on and therefore, again the learned trial Court adjourned the matter to 20.06.2005. That on 18.07.2005, the original complainant and the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 submitted the application Exh.16 submitting that the complainant and the accused have settled the matter and therefore, after accepting the settlement accused be discharged. The original complainant also submitted the application Exh.17 on the very day to close his evidence by submitting that as he has settled the matter with the original accused, he does not want to proceed further with the case. That application Exh.15 on the very day was submitted by the complainant as well as the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 to record the settlement and to grant them the permission to compound the offences as per section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "CrPC"). That the learned trial Court passed the order below Exh.15 accepting the settlement only qua the compoundable offences and passed an order that for rest of the offences the trial may be proceeded further. Therefore, further examination in chief of the original complainant (PW-1) was recorded on 25.07.2005 and he fully supported the case of the prosecution including admitting the complaint given by him. He also admitted the accused giving him two cheques. He also admitted that the accused took Rs. 1,50,000/- from him for offering him the Government job. However, thereafter, in the cross-examination and as in the meantime the accused won over the complainant and returned the amount to him, thereafter the original complainant (PW-1) did not support the case of the prosecution to some extent. In cross-examination he specifically admitted that except to recover the amount from the accused, there was no any other intention. He also admitted in the cross that as he has received the amount from the accused. That thereafter the prosecution examined wife of the original complainant viz. Bhaminiben Vipulbhai Shah (PW-2) at Exh.27 on 25.07.2005 itself and naturally in light of the deposition of the original complainant and the original complainant received the amount from the original accused No. 1, she did not support the case of the prosecution.

2.3. The prosecution also examined the following prosecution witness.

2.4. Through the aforesaid witnesses the prosecution also brought on record the following documentary evidences.

2.5. That after the closing purshis was submitted by the prosecution, further statement of the original accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC. They denied having committed any offence.

2.6. That at the conclusion of the trial, by impugned judgment and order the learned trial Court has acquitted both the accused for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 469, 471, 171 read with Section 114 of the IPC. At this stage it is required to be noted that though initially both the accused were charged and tried for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC also along with the aforesaid offences, in view of the settlement purshis submitted by the complainant and the accused and as the offences under Sections 406 and 420 were compoundable, the learned trial Court permitted the parties to compound the compoundable offences i.e. 406 and 420 of the IPC and therefore, the accused were tried for rest of the offences i.e. Sections 467, 468, 469, 471 and 171 read with Section 114 of the IPC.

2.7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court acquitting the respondents herein � original accused for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 469, 471, 171 and 114 of the IPC, the State has preferred the present Criminal Appeal.

3. Shri Rakesh Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has appeared on behalf of the appellant State and Shri J.N. Jadeja, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 herein and Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned advocate appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 herein.

4. Shri Rakesh Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently submitted that the learned trial Court has materially erred in acquitting the original accused.

4.1. It is submitted that the learned trial Court while acquitting the original accused has not properly appreciated the evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the fact that as such the prosecution has been successful in proving that the original accused No. 1 forged and fabricated the identity card of the Forest Department and posed himself as Officer of the Forest Department. It is submitted that a fake identity card of the original accused of the Forest Department with the stamp of the Forest Department and with his photograph and signature has been recovered at the instance of the original accused from his house. It is submitted that the prosecution is also successful in proving that the original accused No. 1 was not the officer of the Forest Department as posed and that the identity card (Exh.41) was fake, by examining the officer of the Forest Department.

4.2. It is further submitted by Shri Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State that as such even the original complainant has supported the case of the prosecution to a large extent, however thereafter as the original accused settled the matter with the complainant and he returned the amount which was taken by them from the complainant, thereafter he did not support the case of the prosecution though he has specifically and categorically admitted having given the complaint which was recorded in the form of FIR. It is submitted that therefore the learned trial Court ought to have convicted the original accused for the rest of the offences (non-compoundable) more particularly relying upon the deposition of the original complainant (PW-1), the deposition of the Investigating Officer (PW-9) and the deposition of the officer of the Forest Department (PW-8) and the documentary evidences more particularly Exh.41 and also other documentary evidences on record i.e. Exhs.22 to 26 i.e. communications between the complainant and accused No. 1.

4.3. It is further submitted that even the learned trial Court has also not properly exercised the duty cast upon him and even has not tried to go to the root of the matter and find out the truth. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the fact that the original accused committed the serious crime which was against the society at large and therefore, the moment the original complainant subsequently did not support the case of the prosecution on the ground that he has settled the matter with the original accused and he has got back the money, the learned trial Court ought to have become more cautious and ought to have convicted the original accused considering the other evidence on record. It is submitted that the learned trial Court ought to have taken the matter very seriously against the original complainant for subsequently not supporting the case of the prosecution though initially he supported the case of the prosecution more parcularly when the complainant categorically deposed that his only intention to launch the prosecution was to recover his amount and that he has received the amount. It is submitted that the learned trial Court ought to have taken the serious view by observing that the criminal prosecution could not have been used for recovery of the amount. It is submitted that if such conduct on the part of the complainant is permitted, in that case, it would be misuse of the criminal prosecution which cannot be permitted. It is submitted that the learned trial Court ought to have appreciated that the criminal prosecution cannot be permitted to be in the hands of such complainant and/or the accused. It is submitted that therefore as such the learned trial Court ought to have even initiated the proceedings against the original complainant for misusing the criminal prosecution.

Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present criminal appeal and quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and convict the original accused for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 171 read with Section 114 of the IPC and impose the maximum punishment provided under the aforesaid offences.

5. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Rakesh Sharma and Shri J.N. Jadeja, learned advocates appearing on behalf of the original accused.

5.1. Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective accused more particularly Shri Sharma, learned advocate, who has also made submissions on behalf of both the accused have vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case more particularly when most of the prosecution witnesses including the original complainant and his wife and his relatives have not supported the case of the prosecution, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the original accused.

5.2. It is vehemently submitted that as such the original complainant and the accused entered into settlement and the settlement was accepted by the learned trial Court for the compoundable offences i.e. 406 and 420 of the IPC. It is submitted that with respect to rest of the offences more particularly for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 469, 471 and 171 read with Section 114 of the IPC, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused and therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted both the original accused. It is submitted that as such the prosecution has not established and proved that the original accused No. 1 got prepared the fake identity card and that the said fake identity card was used by him. It is submitted that in absence of any such evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the original accused.

Making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the present criminal appeal.

6. Heard learned advocates appearing for respective parties at length. We have perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court. We have re-appreciated the entire evidence on record.

At the outset it is required to be noted that this is a glaring example of abuse of the criminal prosecution by the original complainant who unfortunately used the criminal prosecution for recovery of his money and even the learned trial Court also has not appreciated the public interest and has not considered that the crime is against the society and not only between two individuals. The learned trial Court has also not properly appreciated the fact that the fate of the prosecution cannot be permitted to be in the hands of such persons.

6.1. That the respondents herein - original accused were charged for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 114, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 171 of the IPC. At the outset it is required to be noted that in the present case the original complainant (PW-1) filed the complaint against the accused for the aforesaid offences which was thereafter registered as FIR being ICR No. 238/2004 with Adalaj Police Station. The original complainant (PW-1) in his deposition has categorically and specifically admitted having given the complaint against the original accused. He has admitted the contents of the FIR. The same is also proved by the prosecution by examining the concerned Police Officer who recorded the complaint/FIR. In the FIR as well as in the deposition the original complainant (PW-1) had specifically stated that the original accused No. 2 Kashmiraben told them that her husband is serving as Inspector in the Forest Department and that he had good relations in the Income Tax Department as well as the Sales Tax Department and he will be able to get Government job, showing the I-Card of the original accused No. 1 and other documents of the Forest Department. The original complainant (PW-1) has further stated in his deposition that both the accused more particularly the original accused No. 1 gave promise/assurance to him to get the job in the Sales Tax Department of his wife Bhaminiben, brother Suken and to get job in the Income Tax Department for his brother in law Jigar and his friend Kishore. He has also further stated in his deposition that for which Rs. 6 lac in all were settled and out of which Rs. 1,50,000/- was paid. He has also admitted that thereafter he had shown the call letters of the Sales Tax Department in favour of Bhaminiben and Suken from the file and told the complainant that they will receive the order by post. He has also stated in his deposition that thereafter when they did not receive any call letter/order, when they insisted to return the amount, Rs. 40,000/- was returned, however and for rest, two cheques drawn on Gandhinagar Sahakari Bank were given which were returned. He has categorically stated in the deposition that the original accused thereby cheated him. At this stage it is required to be noted that as such till 11.02.2005, the original complainant fully supported the case of the prosecution. However, thereafter, the original accused having realised that the original complainant is supporting the case of the prosecution and they might be convicted, they won over the complainant and paid the amount to the original complainant and therefore, even for talks for settlement the original complainant as well as accused requested for adjournment time and again by submitting the applications Exhs.12, 13 and 14 and ultimately submitted the settlement purshis before the Court on 18.07.2005 and the learned trial Court permitted the original complainant and the accused to compound the compoundable offences i.e. for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC and for rest the learned trial Court directed to proceed further with the trial and thereafter, further examination in chief of the complainant came to be recorded on and after 25.07.2005. It is also required to be noted that even in the examination in chief the complainant fully supported the case of the prosecution, however thereafter in the cross he has not supported the case of the prosecution, as so stated by him in the cross-examination, as he has received the money from the original accused, he does not want to proceed further with the trial and therefore, he has denied in the cross-examination that the accused got any amount from him on giving false promise of giving Government job. He also stated that it is true that he was not shown I-Card or any other documents by the accused. However, he has specifically admitted in the cross-examination that as he has received the entire amount from the original accused No. 1, he has no dispute with the accused. He has also admitted that they have entered into the settlement. He has also specifically admitted in the cross that except the recovery of the amount from the accused, there was no other intention by him. Thus, for recovery of the amount the original complainant had misused the criminal prosecution which is highly deprecated. From the deposition of the original complainant (PW-1) and even complaint and FIR which is admitted and if the original complainant would not have submitted the settlement purshis and would not have requested for compounding the offences, the original accused would have been convicted even for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. However, unfortunately after recording of some examination in chief of the original complainant (PW-1) and when the accused realised that they are likely to be convicted as the original complainant is fully supporting the case of the prosecution, they won over the complainant and paid the entire amount which they had taken from the original complainant by giving false promises to get the Government job and for which they created trust by showing fake Government documents including the I-Card of accused No. 1 of Forest Department. However, as the learned trial Court passed the order below Exh.15 permitting the original complainant and accused to compound the compoundable offences i.e. for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC and the same has attained the finality, we rest the matter there and we are considering the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court with respect to other non-compoundable offences for which the accused were tried. However, at the cost of repetition we strongly deprecate the conduct on the part of the original complainant as well as the original accused more particularly the original complainant who had misused the criminal prosecution for recovery of his amount. For recovery of the amount the remedy is the civil proceedings and the criminal prosecution cannot be used for recovery of the amount. Even the conduct on the part of the accused to subsequently win over the complainant and to pay the amount and thereafter settle the matter and that too after deposition of the complainant had begun and thereafter having seen from the deposition that they are likely to be convicted, they paid the amount to the original complainant and settled the dispute, is also highly deprecated.

6.2. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the evidence on record more particularly the deposition of the original complainant (PW-1) and other evidences on record of the Investigating Officer and the documentary evidences on record more particularly the I-Card having the photograph and signature of the original accused No. 1 of the Forest Department posing himself to be the officer of the Forest Department (Exh.37), which has been recovered from the house of the original accused No. 1 at his instance, the impugned judgment and order qua other offences is required to be considered and it is required to be considered what offence the original accused have committed.

6.3. The original accused were tried for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 469, 471 and 171 of the IPC. As observed herein above as such the original accused were originally charged for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC also, however subsequently and in view of the settlement purshis submitted before the learned trial Court and requesting to permit them to compound the offences, the learned trial Court permitted the complainant and the original accused to compound the compoundable offences i.e. Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, the original accused were tried for the aforesaid offences only.

6.4. Now, so far as the offences under Sections 171, 467, 469 and 471 of the IPC are concerned, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, we are of the opinion that no case is made out against the accused for the aforesaid offences. As per section 171 of the IPC, whoever, not belonging to a certain class of public servants, wears any garb or carries any token resembling any garb or token used by that class of public servants, with the intention that it may be believed, or with the knowledge that it is likely to be believed, that he belongs to that class of public servants, shall be punished. From the evidence on record as such there was no allegation that the accused were wearing garb or carrying any token resembling any garb or token used by any public servant. Under the circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the original accused for the offence under Section 171 of the IPC.

6.5. As per section 467 of the IPC, whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money that person is said to have committed the offence under Section 467 of the IPC. Considering the evidence on record, no case is made out for the offence under Section 467 also. There is no evidence that accused have forged documents which purports to be a valuable security or a Will, or ...... as mentioned in section 467 of the IPC. Under the circumstances, the learned trial Court has also rightly acquitted the original accused for the offence under Section 467 of the IPC. Similarly, no case is made out for the offence under Section 469 and/or section 471 of the IPC. Nothing is on record that accused committed any forger, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall harm the reputation of any party. Similarly, in light of the evidence on record and for whatever reason the original complainant has stated in the cross that he was not shown any fake I-Card and/or other documents, this Court has no other alternative but to acquit the original accused for the offence under Section 471 of the IPC. Otherwise and if the original complainant would not have thereafter supported the case of the prosecution as he received the money from the original accused, in light of the complaint as well as his deposition, the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 would have been convicted for the offence under Section 471 of the IPC. Under the circumstances, we have no other alternative but to confirm the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court acquitting the original accused for the offence under Section 471 of the IPC.

6.6. However, on re-appreciation of evidence, we are of the opinion that original accused No. 1 can be held guilty for the offence under Section 468 of the IPC. A fake I-Card having photograph and signature of accused No. 1 of the Forest Department has been recovered from the house of the original accused No. 1 and at his instance and from the place which the accused No. 1 alone had knowledge. Thus, there is a discovery of the fake I-Card having the photograph and signature of the original accused No. 1 under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The aforesaid has not been explained by the accused at all. The prosecution has examined Harshad Keshavlal Modi (PW-8), an Officer from Forest Department at Exh.37. He has categorically stated that there is no office of the Forest Department at the address mentioned in the said I-Card. He has also stated that no such person like the accused No. 1 and as mentioned in the said I-Card (Exh.41) is serving in the Forest Department. Thus, the prosecution has been successful in proving the case against the accused No. 1 for the offence under Section 468 of the IPC. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court has materially erred in acquitting the original accused for the offence under Section 468 of the IPC. While recording the finding holding the original accused No. 1 not guilty for the offence under Section 468 of the IPC, the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record but has as such ignored the evidence on record i.e. the recovery of fake I-Card (discovered under Section 27 of the Evidence Act) and the deposition of the Investigating Officer and the deposition of Officer of the Forest Department (PW-8) and it has resulted into miscarriage of justice.

6.7. Now, so far as the original accused No. 2 is concerned, from the evidence on record, she cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 468 of the IPC.

7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated herein above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned 3rd Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gandhinagar in Criminal Case No. 8093/2004 acquitting the respondents herein - original accused for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 469, 471 and 171 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is hereby confirmed. However the same is modified to the extent holding the original accused No. 1 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and consequently original accused No. 1 is hereby held guilty for the offence under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

8. We have heard the respondent No. 1 herein � original accused No. 1 on sentence having held him guilty for the offence under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The original accused No. 1 is personally present in the Court. He has stated that he has old aged parents and he is serving in one religious Dharamshala and therefore, he has requested to take lenient view.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted to impose maximum punishment under Section 468 of the IPC by submitting that such offences are as such against the public at large and it is against the society and such offences are increasing.

8.1. Having heard learned advocates for respective parties on sentence and considering the gravity of the offence committed by the original accused No. 1 and the conduct on the part of the original accused No. 1 having entered into settlement for other offences i.e. for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, after the evidence had begun and the deposition of the original complainant (PW-1) was being recorded, while convicting the original accused for the offence under Section 468 of the IPC, the original accused No. 1 is sentenced to undergo 3 years'' Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further 3 months'' Rigorous Imprisonment. The original accused No. 1, who is present in the Court, be taken into custody forthwith to undergo the remaining sentence as per the judgment and order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1985/2006.

8.2. At this stage Shri Sharma, learned advocate appearing for Shri Jadeja, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original accused No. 1 prays for some time to the original accused No. 1 to surrender (four weeks'' time).

In the facts and circumstances of the case, time to surrender to the original accused No. 1 to undergo the remaining sentence is hereby granted upto 06.06.2016.

Further Order

9. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2016 by which the original complainant Shri Vipul Sevantilal Shah (PW-1) was called upon and directed to show cause as to why appropriate order should not be passed against him for abuse of the Court''s process, for recovery of the amount, Shri Salim Saiyed, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original complainant (PW-1) has appeared on behalf of the original complainant as well as his wife Bhaminiben (PW-2). Two separate affidavits are filed, affirmed by the original complainant Shri Vipul Sevantilal Shah (PW-1) and Mrs. Bhaminiben W/o. Vipul Shah (PW-2) tendering unconditional apology for having misused the criminal prosecution and for abuse of Court and Court process for recovery of the amount and have requested to pardon them and discharge the notice. In the alternate Shri Saiyed, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original complainant (PW-1) has requested to reprimand them and in the alternate it is requested not to direct for prosecution for making false statement on oath while giving evidence before the Court and misusing the criminal prosecution and abuse of the Court and Court process for recovery of their amount.

Having heard learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original complainant (PW-1) and in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the request made on behalf of the original complainant (PW- 1), though in the facts and circumstances of the case, we would have directed to initiate the prosecution for making false statements on oath while giving evidence before the Court and misusing the criminal prosecution and the abuse of Court and Court process for recovery of money and after the recovery of the amount thereafter not supporting the case of the prosecution, the prayer on behalf of the original complainant (PW-1) to withdraw the show-cause notice and/or to reprimand them for the act done by them is hereby rejected. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, instead of directing for prosecution, we deem it proper to impose the cost which is quantified at Rs. 25,000/-. Consequently, we impose the cost of Rs. 25,000/- upon the original complainant for abuse of process of Court and Court''s process.

10. At this stage Shri Saiyed, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original complainant (PW-1) has requested to grant some reasonable time (15 days) to the original complainant to deposit the aforesaid cost.

Considering the request made by Shri Saiyed, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original complainant (PW-1), time to deposit the amount of cost by the original complainant (PW-1) is hereby granted upto 19.05.2016 as requested by Shri Saiyed, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original complainant (PW-1).