Gujarat High Court
Bharatbhai Merambhai Boricha vs State Of Gujarat on 23 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3951/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 3951 of 2017
==========================================================
BHARATBHAI MERAMBHAI BORICHA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DEEP D VYAS(3869) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PADMRAJ K JADEJA(2095) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR SOHAM JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 23/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R.No.I-10 of 2017 registered with Rajula Police Station for the offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of Indian Penal Code and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Learned advocate Mr.Vyas for the applicant submit that applicant is third party who has purchased disputed property from accused no.2 - Pratapbhai in the year 2012, whereas, accused no.2 has purchased the said property in the year 2014. He would submit that Criminal complaint qua accused no.1 is abated as he has expired. It is submitted that accused no.2 from whom, the applicant has purchased disputed property has been acquitted by the learned Trial Court in Criminal Case No.316 of Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 01:47:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3951/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025 undefined 2018 stating reason that complainant has compromised with accused - Dineshchandra and settled all the dispute. Learned advocate Mr.Vyas places on record judgment in Criminal Case No.316 of 2018, and submits that no offence remains against the applicant since competent Court has believed that no offence under sections 465, 467, 468,471, 120B and 34 of IPC is proved against accused no.2.
2.1. Making above submissions, it is submitted to allow this application.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Jadeja for respondent no.2 submitted that role of the applicant is different than the role played by accused Pratapbhai and therefore, the Court should not take assistance from judgment of Criminal Case No.316 of 2018 to quash the FIR. Therefore, it is submitted to dismiss the application.
4. Learned APP for respondent State submits that let applicant face trial.
5. I have heard learned advocates for the parties. I have also perused record judgment and order delivered in Criminal Case No.316 of 2018. Trial admittedly is abated against accused no.1
- Dienshchandra. During trial which is conducted against accused no.2, complainant has been examined as witness at Exh.16 and his cross examination has been recorded by learned Trial Court in the judgment, which reads as under (it is in Gujarati language, for better understanding, it is translated in Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 01:47:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3951/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025 undefined English) :-
"During cross-examination conducted on behalf of the defence, the witness deposed that it is true that I have arrived at a peaceful and amicable settlement with the accused outside the Court. It is true that Mr. Dineshbhai Hakani was a trusted person for me. I had purchased both the plots at the instance of Mr. Dineshbhai. The said investment was made with the objective of resaling of the plots. As I was residing in Mumbai, the management of the same were entrusted to Mr. Dineshbhai Hakani. It is true that I had minor dispute with Mr. Dineshbhai. It is true that Mr. Dineshbhai Hakani had instituted Special Civil Suit No. 85 of 2012 before the Court at Amreli in respect of the said properties. It is true that I have lodge the complaint on 28/01/2017. It is true that I was aware of the sale transaction when it was executed. It is true that the written complaint addressed to the Deputy Superintendent of Police was drafted by an individual known to me, and I merely subscribed my signature thereto. It is true that I am unaware of the content of the said complaint. It is true that the dispute in the civil suit filed by Mr. Dineshbhai against me was subsequently settled. It is true that the entire consideration amount arising out of the sale of the plots was duly paid to me by Mr. Dineshbhai at the relevant time. It is true that police ascertained my name and address, and did not pose any other queries. I did not produce any documentary evidence before the police."
6. Role of the applicant in the alleged offence come through accused Pratapbhai and role of accused no.2 - Pratapbhai in the alleged offence comes through accused - Dineshchandra. Complainant in unequivocal terms admitted that he has compromised the disputed with accused Dineshchandra and also admitted that he has received sale consideration of plots which are sold by applicant being subject matter of dispute. The petition deserve consideration.
Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 01:47:05 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3951/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025 undefined
7. In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned FIR being C.R.No.I-10 of 2017 registered with Rajula Police Station as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicant herein. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SATISH Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 01:47:05 IST 2025