Gujarat High Court
Vijaysinh Karansinh Chauhan vs State Of Gujarat on 13 December, 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/16058/2023 ORDER DATED: 13/12/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL petition (QUASHING) NO. 16058 of 2023
==========================================================
VIJAYSINH KARANSINH CHAUHAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. MAULIK M SONI(7249) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS DIVYANGANA JHALA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 13/12/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.
2. By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."), the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the complaint being FIR C.R. No.11209041231005 of 2023 registered with Prantij Police Station - Sabarkantha District for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has nothing to do with the offence and he is falsely implicated in the offence. It is submitted that the Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 15 20:39:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/16058/2023 ORDER DATED: 13/12/2023 undefined dispute is of a civil nature, and no role is attributed to the petitioner in cheating the complainant by forging an agreement of sale.Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that upon a bare perusal of the FIR, it is evident that the entire issue is of a civil nature. However, to tarnish the petitioner's reputation, the present complaint has been given a criminal color instead of being recognized as a civil dispute and in support of his contention, relied on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of (i) Helapalli Raghavaiah v. Station House Officer, reported in 2007(0) AIJEL-SC-38835, (ii) International Advance Research Centre for Powder Metallurgy and New Materials v. Nirmra Cerglass Technics Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2015 (0) AIJEL-SC 57080, (iii) Vesa Holdings Pvt Ltd. v. State of Kerala, reported in 2015(0) AIJEL- SC 56371 and requests to allow the petition.
4. Learned APP vehemently has opposed the petition and argued that the applicants have committed serious offence, therefore, this petition be dismissed.
5. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the documents available on record, it appears from the record that the petitioner has created forged documents and cheated a substantial amount of money from the complainant by executing a sale agreement, as detailed in Annexure-B. The document Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 15 20:39:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/16058/2023 ORDER DATED: 13/12/2023 undefined explicitly mentions the sale consideration amount as Rs. 71,50,000/-, with the complainant having paid Rs. 2,00,000/- to the petitioner. The complaint indicates that the offense was registered on October 31, 2023, and an ongoing investigation is in progress and at this initial stage, the petitioner has filed this petition for quashing and setting aside the complaint, which evidently appears filed with a view to stall further proceedings and investigation.
6. The reference is made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana, reported AIR 2023 SC(Criminal) 1101.
7. Further in the case of Neeharika Infrastruecture Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharshtra, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 wherein, the Apex Court has observed that:
"iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases'. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its petition for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court);
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule;"Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 15 20:39:17 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/16058/2023 ORDER DATED: 13/12/2023 undefined
8. Considering the aforesaid facts, and settled position of law, the Court is unable to come any occlusion that the offence is not made out. Therefore, the petition stands dismissed at admission stage. Observations made herein above are tentative in nature and will not cause any prejudice to either party at the trial. Rule is discharged.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 15 20:39:17 IST 2023