Gujarat High Court
Patel Vallabhbhai Punjaram vs State Of Gujarat on 1 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19879/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 19879 of 2014
==========================================================
PATEL VALLABHBHAI PUNJARAM & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SHIVANG M SHAH(5916) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MS DHARA M SHAH(5546) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR. CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 01/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash and set aside the Criminal Case No.56 of 2010 with the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kadi and all other proceedings initiated pursuant thereto.
2. The Respondent No.2-Complainant and the Applicant- Accused are co-tenants in Property No. City No. 12/1 situated in City Survey No. 71/B1 at Village: Kadi, Taluka Kadi, District Mehsana, for the past 20 years. On 22.09.2008, the complainant entered into an agreement with the applicant for operating a hotel business under the name "Tulsi" on the said premises owned by Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:06:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19879/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined Shri Gulabnabi Haji Mohmad and Shri Abdulkadar Mohamad Siddiki. It is alleged that the applicant started acting in a manner detrimental to the complainant's interest in the joint business and subsequently forged a Consent Agreement dated 13.10.2010 by affixing signatures of the original owners in the presence of a notary to obtain an electricity connection, and further attempted to exclude the complainant's name from GEB and Nagarpalika records. 2.1. Upon learning of the forged consent, the original owners are stated to have executed an affidavit dated 08.11.2010, disowning the signatures on the alleged consent agreement. Relying on these events, the complainant filed a private complaint against the applicant, leading the learned JMFC, Kadi, to direct investigation under Section 202(1) of the Cr.P.C., culminating in issuance of process vide order dated 12.09.2014. It is the case of the applicant that the complainant, being neither the aggrieved party nor authorized by the original owners, has misused the criminal process. A Regular Civil Suit No. 45 of 2012 filed by the original owners against both parties for recovery of rent and possession is already pending. Hence, the present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of Criminal Inquiry Case No. 56 of 2010 and the order dated 12.09.2014 passed by the learned JMFC, Kadi.
Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:06:26 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19879/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined
3. Learned advocate Ms. Dhara Shah, appearing for the petitioners, assailing the issuance of process by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kadi, submitted that the impugned order has been passed without due application of mind. It is contended that the learned trial Court failed to consider the crucial fact that the person whose signature is allegedly forged--Mr. Ghulam Nabi Haji Mohammad and Mr. Abdul Kadir Mohammad--has not lodged any complaint in that regard. Instead, a private complaint has been instituted at the behest of a third party, alleging forgery of the said signatures on a document titled Sammati Karar Lekh (Annexure-B). 3.1. She further submitted that the dispute is essentially of a civil nature, arising out of a partnership disagreement, wherein the complainant is one of the partners. The allegation pertains to the forgery of the landlord's signature on the Sammati Karar Lekh (Annexure-B), purportedly executed between the partners. 3.2. It was also brought to the attention of this Court that the landlord had instituted Civil Suit No. 45 of 2012 before the learned Principal Civil Judge, Kadi, seeking vacant and peaceful possession of the demised premises. However, the said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter, a restoration application being Civil Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:06:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19879/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2024 was preferred, which too came to be rejected by the competent Court, i.e., the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kadi.
3.3. All these proceedings, learned counsel contended, clearly demonstrate that the private complaint is motivated by malice and has been filed with the sole intention to harass the petitioners, despite the complainant lacking the necessary locus standi. The learned trial Court, without appreciating these material aspects, proceeded to issue process, thereby committing a serious error of law and jurisdiction.
3.4. Upon such submission, learned advocate Ms. Dhara Shah urged this Court to allow the present petition and quash the order of issuance of process in the private complaint.
4. Though served, the private respondent has chosen not to appear and contest the petition.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, supported the impugned order and submitted that it is an undisputed fact that the petitioners forged the signatures of the landlord on the document titled Sammati Karar Lekh (Annexure-B). Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:06:26 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19879/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined The learned trial Court has duly taken into consideration this material aspect. He further submitted that the said forged document was subsequently utilized by the petitioners before government authorities, including for obtaining an electricity connection, thereby projecting the forged document as genuine before the competent authority.
5.1. On the strength of the above submissions, learned APP prayed for dismissal of the present petition.
6. I have heard the learned advocates for both sides and have perused the material on record, including the factual background of the case.
6.1. The complainant, Shri Kantilal Gogajibhai, has filed a private complaint alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 506, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the accused-petitioners. The said complaint was registered as Inquiry Case No. 56 of 2010. 6.2. The learned trial Court, upon receipt of the complaint, directed that an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be conducted, and accordingly directed the concerned Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:06:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19879/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined police officer to investigate the allegations and submit a report within 30 days.
6.3. The complainant and the petitioners were business partners and had commenced a venture under the name and style of "Tulsi Hotel," situated on a premises owned by a landlord. It is alleged that the petitioners, with dishonest intent, forged the Sammati Karar Lekh (Annexure-B) by fabricating the signature of the landlord and submitted the said forged document before the electricity department for the purpose of obtaining an electricity connection for the said premises.
6.4. Upon considering the material placed on record, the learned trial Court, having formed a prima facie opinion, assigned reasons in Paragraph 4 of the impugned order for issuance of process against the accused, which is as under:-
"4.Upon a careful consideration of the complaint, verification statement, and the police report submitted by the complainant, it emerges that the immovable property bearing C.T. No. 16/1 and C.T. No. 71/B/1, situated in the vicinity of Kadi, has been in possession of the complainant under a tenancy arrangement for the past 20 years. The said property is owned by Shri Ghulam Nabi Haji Mohammad and Shri Abdulkader Mohammad Siddiqui. It is evident from the documentary evidence produced by the complainant and the findings recorded in the police report that the complainant had entered into a Partnership Deed with Accused No.1 dated 22.09.2008 for running a hotel business. Furthermore, as per the Rent Agreement executed on the same day, i.e., 22.09.2008, the said owners had let out the subject premises to the complainant. It Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:06:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19879/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined is also indicated that an earlier rent agreement for the said property was executed on 08.02.2000. In support of his claim, the complainant has also produced an electricity bill issued by North Gujarat Electricity Company for the billing period of March-April 2010, which reflects that the complainant was in possession of the tenanted premises. Additionally, the complainant has relied upon the partnership agreement, evidencing that he and Accused No.1 had commenced business under the name and style of Hotel Tulsi as co-partners with effect from 22.09.2008. Furthermore, the complainant had been issued a Restaurant Registration Certificate by the Deputy Collector and Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 31.07.2009, and a Municipal Trade License dated 07.07.2008 was also issued by the Kadi Municipality. The registration certificate for the establishment also stands in the name of the complainant effective from 01.07.2008. According to the complainant, Accused No.1, in connivance with Accused No.2, fraudulently prepared a Consent Agreement purportedly on behalf of the property owners, which was allegedly executed before Notary Shri A.K. Mehta. Accused No.2 is said to have signed the document as a witness. It is alleged that the said document contains forged signatures of the actual owners and was executed without their knowledge or consent, either oral or written. The complainant has categorically denied signing any such consent agreement and contends that the said agreement is forged and fabricated. The alleged forged Consent Agreement, dated 13.10.2010, bears the names of Accused No.1 and the original owners and is claimed to have been notarized by Shri A.K. Mehta. It has further been brought on record that Shri Ghulam Nabi Haji Mohammad, one of the original owners, addressed a communication dated 08.11.2010 to U.G.V.C.L., requesting the disconnection of the existing electricity connection in the name of the complainant. It is alleged that Accused No.1, on the basis of false and fabricated documents, managed to obtain a new electricity connection in his own name. The complainant has asserted that he had never granted any consent for such an application and, hence, submitted a formal request for the disconnection of the said newly obtained connection. Subsequently, the complainant submitted a representation dated 06.12.2010 to the Chief Officer of the Kadi Municipality and the concerned Zonal Officer, seeking cancellation of the license of Hotel Tulsi, which was originally granted in his name. He stated that although the original license stood cancelled for personal reasons, Accused No.1 fraudulently secured a fresh license by submitting forged documents. It is further alleged that Accused No.1, without obtaining any form of consent from the original owners or the complainant, executed a false consent deed, obtained a new Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:06:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19879/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined electricity connection, and also misused fabricated documents to obtain permissions and licenses related to the hotel business. An affidavit dated 08.11.2010 was allegedly sworn before Notary Shri D.M. Patel in furtherance of the fraudulent activities. The police, during the course of investigation, recorded the statements of the complainant and other relevant witnesses, which corroborate the allegations made in the complaint. Additionally, the complainant filed an objection application dated 16.12.2019 opposing the continuation of the electricity connection at the Hotel Tulsi premises in Detroj Circle, and the said application has been duly acknowledged and accepted by the competent authority.Furthermore, the complainant has addressed a written communication to the Executive Engineer, Shri Kadinao, raising objections to the unauthorised grant of a temporary electricity connection in the name of Hotel Tulsi. It is alleged that Accused No.1 orchestrated the procurement of the said temporary connection through illicit means. Upon perusal of the documents produced by Shri Sundar Kame, it is evident that while certain records reflect the name of Accused No.1 as the occupant, the rent receipts are unequivocally issued in the name of the complainant. Additionally, the certificate issued by the District Health Officer dated 06.01.2011 is noted to be in the name of Accused No.1. Furthermore, the statements recorded by the police from both the complainant and the original owner of the property, Shri Ghulam Nabi Haji Mohammad, categorically support the complainant's version. Both have affirmed that no consent was ever given for obtaining any electricity connection and no agreement was executed in that regard. Significantly, the original owner himself has expressly denied having let out the disputed premises to Accused No.1, and has further denied executing any rental or consent agreement in favour of Accused No.1. In light of this unequivocal denial by the true owner, there is no plausible reason to disbelieve the complainant's assertions. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is prima facie established that Accused No.1 has fabricated a bogus and forged tenancy agreement for the purpose of illegally obtaining a water connection in respect of the tenanted premises, and for causing the premises to be registered in his name. Further, Accused No.2, having attested the said forged document as a witness, has actively facilitated the fraud. The forged document purportedly bears the forged signatures of both the complainant and the original owner and has been used as a genuine instrument with the intent to secure unlawful advantage and to effect unauthorised transfer of tenancy rights to Accused No.1 exclusively."Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:06:26 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19879/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined 6.5. Learned advocate Ms. Dhara Shah made extensive submissions; however, she conspicuously refrained from addressing the core issue regarding the signature of the landlord on Sammati Karar Lekh (Annexure-B). She neither denied the allegation that the signature was forged, nor asserted that the signature on the document was genuinely that of the landlord. 6.6. On the contrary, the landlord has filed an affidavit at Annexure-D and also addressed a letter to the competent authority seeking disconnection of the electricity connection. Both documents unequivocally indicate that the landlord has categorically stated that he has not signed the document titled Sammati Karar Lekh (Annexure-B).
6.7. It is an admitted fact that the complainant is a partner in Tulsi Hotel along with the accused. The electricity connection for the said premises was allegedly obtained by relying upon the forged document. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the complainant, being a third party, lacks the locus standi to file the present complaint.
6.8. What emerges from the record is that the learned trial Court has recorded cogent and compelling reasons while issuing process against the accused. At this preliminary stage, the Court was only required to examine whether a prima facie case exists warranting issuance of process. The learned trial Court, upon being satisfied with the material available on record, rightly exercised its discretion in issuing process. I find no infirmity, much less any perversity, in the impugned order warranting interference under the limited scope of jurisdiction. The contention canvassed by the learned advocate Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:06:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19879/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined Ms. Dhara Shah does not merit acceptance.
6.9. It is apt to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Ltd. v/ s. State of Uttar Pradesh [2020 SCC Online SC 958], in para 41 has held as under :-
"41. It is needless to point out that ever since the decision of the Privy Council in King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed AIR 1945 PC 18, the law is well settled that Courts would not thwart any investigation. It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on. As cautioned by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. While examining a complaint, the 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 or in the complaint. In S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat (2001) 7 SCC 659 this Court again cautioned that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. Quashing of a complaint should rather be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. In S.M. Datta (supra), this Court held that if a perusal of the first information report leads to disclosure of an offence even broadly, law courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere."
6.10. In paragraph 103 of the decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that:-
"103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be iustified in Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:06:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19879/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined embarkina upon an enauirv as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice."
7. Applying the ratio laid down in the aforementioned judgment to the facts of the present case, this Court finds no justifiable reason to interdict the proceedings at the threshold. Accordingly, the petition stands DISMISSED. Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated. Rule/Notice, if any, is discharged.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) MANISH MISHRA Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:06:26 IST 2025