Gujarat High Court
Dharmeshbhai Muljibhai Ranpariya ... vs State Of Gujarat on 5 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2417/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 2417 of 2025
==========================================================
DHARMESHBHAI MULJIBHAI RANPARIYA (PATEL)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
PRASHANTKUMAR R SHARMA(8591) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 05/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
The present petition is filed for quashing and setting aside the FIR bearing C.R.No.I-11202008250130 of 2025 registered with City `A' Div.Police Station, Jamnagar for the offences punishable under Sections 4(3), 5(c) of Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 and under Sections 506 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Sharma for the applicant and learned APP Mr.Dave for the respondent-state.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Sharma for the applicant has submitted that the complainant who has filed the complaint before the authority has no locus to file such complaint as the complainant has already sold the property situated in the said society; that the provisions under the Land Grabbing Act Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Feb 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 05 22:37:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2417/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined and Indian Penal Code are invoked in the present proceedings whereby the petitioner is shown as encroacher of the common plot. In fact, the petitioner is not having any possession of the land of the common plat. He has further submitted that on bare reading of the FIR, it is strange that the petitioner is also named as brother of a criminal who is having criminal history Mr.Jayesh Patel though normally, the person is not described in such manner in the FIR. He further submitted that considering Rule 5(4) of the Land Grabbing Rules, necessary inquiry is required to be carried out to consider the locus of the complainant to file such complaint. He submitted that considering the fact that the FIR does not disclose any believable offences and continuation of proceedings will amount to abuse of process of law and therefore this petition is required to be considered.
4. Learned APP Mr.Dave has opposed the same by submitting the report received from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jamnagar, whereby it is stated that this is not only the FIR registered against the present petitioner and there are more than five other FIRs registered against the present petitioner. The petitioner is having criminal history. He has further submitted that on bare reading of the FIR, the offence is made out and recently FIR is registered on 23.1.2025 and without availing remedy available under the law by approaching the competent court Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Feb 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 05 22:37:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2417/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined for seeking bail, the petitioner has preferred this petition and that too when the investigation is at very nascent stage. He has also pointed out from the papers of investigation by pointing out a google photo and earmarked portion in that photo whereby it is mentioned that the petitioner is having property in question and adjacent to that bunglow, there is a common plot of the society whereby the petitioner has put a shed as well as room and also put separate gate as if the said common plot is part of his bunglow. This aspect is required to prima facie constitute the offence under the Land Grabbing Act. The investigation is at an initial stage and considering the antecedents of the petitioner who is having criminal history, no discretion is required to be exercised. Even otherwise also, the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is required to be exercised sparingly and not as a substitute for seeking bail from the competent court. Therefore, he submitted that the present petitioner is required to be dismissed.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and also considered the provisions of sections invoked in the present proceedings which are reproduced herein.
Sections 4(3) and 5(c) of the Land Grabbing Act Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Feb 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 05 22:37:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2417/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined reads as under:
"4(3) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to fourteen years and with fine which may extend to Jantri value of such properties.
5(c) uses any land grabbed or causes or permits knowingly to be used for purposes, connected with sale or allotment."
506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.--Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.--and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 8 [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
6. There is prima facie material available by way of google map where it clearly transpires that there is some encroachment in the common plot by way of shed and Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Feb 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 05 22:37:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2417/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined construction of the petitioner who is having adjacent bunglow to the common plot. This factum coupled with the other material available on the record indicate that prima facie the offence mentioned in the FIR is made out against the petitioner which requires further investigation. It is also required to be noted that the FIR is registered on 23.1.2025 and within five days, the present petitioner has filed this petition without availing appropriate remedy under the law. This Court is not inclined to exercise powers in such gross case in favour of the present petitioner which is otherwise required to be exercised very sparingly.
7. Considering the facts of the present case, neither it can be said that there is no prima facie made out against the present petitioner nor it can be said that continuation of proceedings will amount to abuse of process of law. The conduct of the petitioner also speaks by itself. Therefore, no case is made out for entertaining the matter as this petition is found meritless. In view of the same and considering the judgment in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. V/s State of Maharashtra reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315, this petition is required to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) SRILATHA Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Feb 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 05 22:37:08 IST 2025