Gujarat High Court
Sandip Subhashchandra Nanavati vs State Of Gujarat on 29 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15580/2019 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 15580 of 2019
==========================================================
SANDIP SUBHASHCHANDRA NANAVATI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARSHADRAY A DAVE(3461) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
KAUSHAL H PATEL(9328) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 29/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being C.R.No.I-254 of 2019 registered with Salabatpura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein.
2. Learned advocate Mr.Dave for the petitioner submits that purely civil dispute between between two partners has been given criminal color by lodging FIR after 17 years of incident. Referring FIR at page no.11, learned advocate Mr.Dave submits that FIR on its face value indicates that settlement has arrived between the parties on 21.04.2012 and it was decided that Rs.70,98,436/- was outstanding against the petitioner, yet Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:39:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/15580/2019 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined complainant has not done anything except filing complaint after 17 years. Learned advocate Mr.Dave would submit that FIR rather for offence under section 406 and 420 of IPC seems to be averments made in the plaint for recovery of amount which can be filed as civil suit before the learned Civil Court. In nutshell, learned advocate Mr.Dave submitted that FIR in peculiar facts filed to give civil action color of criminality and after 17 years is abuse of process of law. Therefore, he submits to allow the petition and quash the impugned FIR.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Keval Dholakiya for respondent no.2 referred to page no.62 (Annexure - II) and submitted that MOU was executed between the petitioner and complainant, whereby, the petitioner owes his responsibility to pay Rs.70 lakhs and odd amount to the complainant being amount settled at the end of account. Since the petitioner has not paid amount to the complainant, it compelled complainant to initiate proceedings. He would submit essential ingredients of section 406 and 402 of IPC therefore, is satisfied.
4. Learned APP for the respondent - State while adopting arguments of learned advocate Mr.Dholakiya submitted that contentions raised by the petitioner may be examined during trial and cannot be reason to quash FIR at this stage.
4.1. Upon above submission, learned advocates for the respondents submitted to dismiss the petition.
5. FIR tells as under :-
Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:39:24 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/15580/2019 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined 5.1. Complainant and petitioner came in contact through common friend viz. Datubhai Patil in January, 2002. At later point of time, complainant went to the office of petitioner, whereby, the petitioner said that he is working for IOC and construction site is going on and requested complainant to join.
Complainant joined with the petitioner with understanding that 70% of the profit shall be taken up by the petitioner and 30% shall be taken by the complainant as petitioner has invested entire amount in partnership. Construction work on the site was completed in the year 2010. At that time, complainant asked amount from the petitioner, however, petitioner did not pay amount to the complainant. According to the complinant, he has malice on the part of the petitioner, and continued to ask and demanded money from the petitioner. On 21.04.2012, amount was settled at Rs.1,36,33,038/- and complainant has accepted and withdrawn Rs.65,34,602/- during transaction and amount of Rs.70,98,436/- remained to be paid to the complainant by petitioner. According to FIR, the petitioner has acknowledged by executing MOU.
6. Aforesaid circumstances arise from FIR demonstrate that it is civil dispute between the parties and specific question was asked to learned advocate Mr.Dholakiya whether civil suit is filed by complainant to recover outstanding amount of Rs.70,98,436/-. Answer is in negative.
7. In aforesaid view, according to this Court very essential ingredients of offence of criminal breach of trust or cheating since inception is missing in the matter. Averments made in FIR demonstrate as plaint of civil suit. FIR is nothing but conversion Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:39:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/15580/2019 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined of civil dispute into criminal liability.
8. Recently, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shailesh Kumar Singh Alias Shailesh R. Singh v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh [2025 INSC 869], examined the issue and hled that civil case should not be converted into criminal case. Para 9 and 11 are relevant, it reads as under :
"9. What we have been able to understand is that there is an oral agreement between the parties. The Respondent No.4 might have parted with some money in accordance with the oral agreement and it may be that the appellant - herein owes a particular amount to be paid to the Respondent No.4. However, the question is whether prima facie any offence of cheating could be said to have been committed by the appellant.
10. xxxx
11. The entire case is squarely covered by a recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of "Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh" reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690. In the said decision, the entire law as to what constitutes cheating and criminal breach of trust respectively has been exhaustively explained. It appears that this very decision was relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before the High Court. However, instead of looking into the matter on its own merits, the High Court thought fit to direct the petitioner to go for mediation and that too by making payment of Rs. 25,00,000/- to 4th respondent as a condition precedent. We fail to understand, why the High Court should undertake such exercise. The High Court may either allow the petition saying that no offence is disclosed or may reject the petition saying that no case for quashing is made out. Why should the High Court make an attempt to help the complainant to recover the amount due and payable by the accused. It is for the Civil Court or Commercial Court as the case may be to look into in Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:39:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/15580/2019 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined a suit that may be filed for recovery of money or in any other proceedings, be it under the Arbitration Act, 1996 or under the provisions of the IB Code, 2016."
9. In view of aforesaid and while referring to judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335], present petition deserves consideration.
10. In wake of above reasons, the petition is allowed. Impugned FIR being C.R.No.I-254 of 2019 registered with Salabatpura Police Station and further proceedings arising out of the said FIR is hereby quashed qua the petitioner. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SATISH Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:39:24 IST 2025