Gujarat High Court
Yogesh Thakkar vs State Of Gujarat on 2 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7482/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 19/06/2025
Pronounced On : 02/07/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 7482 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
YOGESH THAKKAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR CHINTAN DAVE, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being C.R.No.I - 26 of 2013 registered with Padra Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 426, 427, 447, 465, 467, 468, 384, 201 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 7, 13(1) (A) (B) & 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act Page 1 of 16 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 02:55:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7482/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined r/w sections 37 and 61 of the Land Revenue Code and section as well as section 43 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein.
2. Brief facts taken out from the pleadings are as under:-
2.1 Questioned FIR came to be filed before Padra Police Station by the respondent No.2 inter alia alleging the offence stated to have been committed at any time before 7 years and for which complaint was filed on 2.2.2013 against one Sanju Digamber by the respondent No.2, who is Deputy Mamlatdar in Mamlatdar office and the jurisdiction of the Padra taluka area is under his duty. Deputy Collector of Padra Shri JN Vaghela and village Jaspur situated is within the limits of Padra taluka. Subsequently, during investigation, name of Ms. Anju Srivastav, who was Addl. Chitnis, Collector office, Vadodara was also found to be involved in the offence and therefore, she was also arrested. The disputed land is situated at village Jaspur, for which inquiry was made by Circle officer Shri nayak.
2.2 Land bearing Block No.1004 paiki 3 and 1004 paiki 4 belongs to one Gangaben Melabhai Manchi and others and in their joint name, the land was situated. It is stated that in the revenue record 7/12 extract also, the land was accordingly situated in their name.
2.3 That on 29.1.2013, Shri K.J. Nayak has made inspection of the above lands and made panchnama, also recorded statement of 'Kabjedar' and thereafter, he was asked to submit the report by higher officer.Page 2 of 16 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 02:55:14 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7482/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined 2.4 That on 31.1.2013, Circle Officer Shri Nayak submitted the report, panchnma and other documentary evidence and reported that the above land and also on government land patala, Block No.1004 paiki 4 was physically possessed by one Samju Digamber, wherein the accused No.2 played active role to grab these parcels of land. Shri Nayak opined to initiate tenancy proceedings under the Land Revenue Code and under the provisions of the Indian Penal code.
2.5 Dy. Collector, Vadodara (Rural) pursuant to this opined on 2.2.2013 to file criminal proceedings and such report is submitted by Dy.Collector to Collector, Vadodara.
2.6 The Collector, Vadodara by letter dated 2.2.2013 found that the physical possession of the land is holding by one Sanjubhai and the panchnama was also made and as it is found that there is breach of Tenancy Act, empowered the complainant to file the FIR. It is also found that Sanjubhai has paid certain amount to the farmers and got the signature in the Kabja receipt. It was also found that the possession was forcefully taken by him and made garden as well as certain pakka construction/farm house in the premise. Further, the land was granted by the Government on new tenure basis and it was not converted into old tenure without permission. The land was otherwise also not supposed to transfer and in spite of the same, the transfer is made in the name of the petitioner.
2.7 The panchkyas of the place was made by one Vaghela Yogendrasinh on 31.1.2013 who has recorded the possession of Sanjubhai and found that the premises was used as a Farm House and certain construction is also made. Similarly, Sanjubhai is also holding possession of land bearing Block No.1004 paiki 3 and 1004 Page 3 of 16 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 02:55:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7482/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined paiki 4 though Block No.1004 is government land and thus, offence was committed.
2.8 As far as land of survey No1004 paiki 3, it was in the name of Amarsang Melabhai Manchi in the revenue record and on inquiry, it was found that on oral understanding, the land was sold to one Nanu Amin for a sale consideration of Rs.5,000/- and he has in terms handed over to Sanjubhai and by force, in fact, the possession was taken from him and though the land is not otherwise permitted to transfer in any manner, the possession is transferred.
2.9 That land bearing survey No.1004 paiki 4 was in the name of Nagjibhai Punjabhai Mali who was kabjedar and in fact, his name ran in the revenue record after his father passed away before 1 year. By oral agreement, the land was given to Nanubhai Amin and from him, it is taken by Sanjubhai. Accordingly, impugned FIR was filed.
2.10 The involvement of the petitioner since surfaced in the offence, he, by this petition, seeks to quash the FIR.
3. Seeking quashment of the FIR, learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli for the petitioner would submit that the FIR in question is filed after seven years of the incident and that there is no explanation in filing the FIR belatedly. According to the FIR, the possession of the agricultural land as well as Government land has been taken by main accused Mr. Mr. Sanju Digambar more than seven years' back. He would further submit that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and it assumes significance on the reason that the first informant is not ordinary person, but he is Deputy Mamlatdar, Padra and he has filed the FIR under the instruction after thorough inquiry made in issue Page 4 of 16 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 02:55:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7482/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined and, yet he has not named the petitioner in the FIR. He would further submit that entire reading of the FIR indicates allegation only against accused No.2, namely Mr. Mr. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being C.R.No.I - 26 of 2013 registered with Padra Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 426, 427, 447, 465, 467, 468, 384, 201 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 7, 13(1) (A) (B) & 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act r/w sections 37 and 61 of the Land Revenue Code and section as well as section 43 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein.
3.1 Upon such submission, learned advocate Mr. Dagli prays to allow the petition and to quash and set aside the impugned FIR.
4. Per contra, vehemently objecting to the petition, learned APP would submit that main accused Mr. Sanju Digambar in complicity with Ms. Anju Srivastav, who was serving as Additional Chitnis, Collector office, Vadodara forged certain documents and siphoned new tenure land belongs to private owners as well as of the Government and thereby, they have duped the Government for more than Rs.5 crore being market price of the land, which the original accused Nos.1 and 2 have siphoned. It is also submitted that main accused Mr. Sanju Digambar was on run, at that time, during investigation, it was found that during this time period, main accused Mr. Sanju Digambar was constantly in touch with the petitioner, CDR of which has been gathered from the investigation. Subsequent Page 5 of 16 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 02:55:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7482/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined thereto, involvement of the petitioner is found u/s 120(B) of the IPC. Therefore, the investigating officer has insisted to take statement of the petitioner, however, the petitioner was also on run. Subsequently, warrant u/s 70 of the CrPC was issued against the petitioner and even process u/s 82 of the CrPC to declare the petitioner as absconder was initiated. Later on, the petitioner, who did not cooperate the investigation, since has been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court, remained present before the Court and submitted bail. Learned APP would further submit that in the matter u/s 120(B) of the IPC, the prosecution is not required to have name of the petitioner in the FIR. However, during the investigation, it is found that some prior point of time, the petitioner and main accused Mr. Sanju Digambar met and made up mind to do criminal act which attracted offence of section 120(B) of the IPC. He would further submit that it is a systematic approach on the part of land mafias to grab the land of innocent persons as well as the government by siphoning more than Rs.5 crore. The petitioner is part of land mafia gang involved in grabbing land illegally.
4.1 Highlighting the role of the petitioner, learned APP would submit that land, which was grabbed by main accused Mr. Sanju Digambar, the petitioner helped him in removing the structure, which was erected on the government land so also on the land of private owner and thereby, has actively participated in removing the evidence of the commission and therefore, even the offence u/s 201 of the IPC is also attracted against the petitioner. Learned APP also argued that the petitioner and his ally main accused Mr. Sanju Digambar in partnership have purchased various agricultural lands on having become agriculturist on a single will, which shows that the petitioner is also land mafia and his intention was to grab the land Page 6 of 16 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 02:55:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7482/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined though his name was not directly surfaced on the record, but his active participation and role he has played in the commission of offence was prima facie established against the petitioner.
4.2 Upon such submission, learned APP prays to dismiss the petition.
5. I have heard arguments canvassed by both the sides and considered other relevant documents on record.
6. Admittedly, in the present case, main accused Mr. Sanju Digambar in connivance with accused Ms. Anju Srivastav, Additional Chitnis, Collector office, Vadodara have forged documents to grab new tenure land of innocent agriculturists and in the process, they have also grabbed the Government land. The thrust of the argument of learned advocate Mr. Dagli is that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and has not played any active role, but arraigned as accused on the ground that he is partner of main accused Mr. Sanju Digambar. This contention cannot be accepted. Reasons for not accepting the contention are that main accused Mr. Sanju Digambar was on run, however, was in contact with the petitioner throughout, that fact prima facie established from the CDR collected during investigation. Learned advocate Mr. Dagli though argued that the petitioner has no link with main accused Mr. Sanju Digambar, failed to disclose that why the petitioner was in contact with main accused Mr. Sanju Digambar, while he was on run at the relevant time. It is also not surfaced on record or emanating from the argument of learned advocate Mr. Dagli that why the petitioner repeatedly remained in contact with Mr. Sanju Digambar what talks took place between them, if it is not related to alleged offence. According to the Page 7 of 16 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 02:55:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7482/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined investigation, main accused Mr. Sanju Digambar was using mobile No.8238377984. The petitioner accused from his mobile No.9825071578 talked nine times and talked once from his another mobile No.9022114429. As observed herein above, learned advocate Mr. Dagli failed to disclose what talks had taken place between main accused Mr. Sanju Digambar and the petitioner when main accused Mr. Sanju Digambar was on run from the hands of the police, if talks are not related to alleged offence.
7. Various contentions raised by learned advocate Mr. Dagli since are disputed questions of fact, they can be adjudged during trial. Series of judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court held that while exercising inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court should refrain from holding mini trial. It is indeed to observe that the Court in a quashing petition must believe allegation in FIR/complaint as true and the petitioner seeking to interdict the FIR, has to establish that non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice.
8. With profit, reference can be made in recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Punit Beriwala Versus State Of Nct Of Delhi, 2025 SCC Online SC 983, in para 29 and 30 held as under:-
"29. It is settled law that power of quashing of a complaint/FIR should be exercised sparingly with circumspection and while exercising this power, the Court must believe the averments and allegations in the complaint to be true and correct. It has been repeatedly held that save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court should not be used in a routine manner according to its whims or caprice.Page 8 of 16 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 02:55:14 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7482/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined "30. In Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401 , this Court has held as under:-
33. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or no coercive steps to be adopted, during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or no coercive steps to be adopted during the investigation or till the final report/charge-sheet is filed under Section 173CrPC, while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under:
33.1. Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence.
33.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences.
33.3. 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.
33.4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).
33.5. 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.
33.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the Page 9 of 16 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 02:55:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7482/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined initial stage.
33.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule.
33.8. Ordinarily, the 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.
33.9. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping.
33.10. Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences.
33.11. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice.
33.12. The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law.
After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure.
33.13. The power under Section 482CrPC is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court.
33.14. However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, Page 10 of 16 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 02:55:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7482/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the selfrestraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur and Bhajan Lal, has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.
33.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482CrPC, only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.
33.16. The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or no coercive steps to be adopted and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438CrPC before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or no coercive steps either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/charge-sheet is filed under Section 173CrPC, while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
33.17. Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after Page 11 of 16 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 02:55:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7482/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order.
33.18. Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of no coercive steps to be adopted within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by no coercive steps to be adopted as the term no coercive steps to be adopted can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied."
9. The Apex Court yet in another case holds that while exercising inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code, the High Court should not hold mini trial. In case of Dharambeer Kumar Singh Versus State Of Jharkhand, (2025) 1 SCC 392, in para 17 to 19 held as under:-
"17. This Court in a series of judgements has held that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the High Court is not supposed to hold a mini trial. A profitable reference can be made to the judgment in the case of CBI vs Aryan Singh (2023 SCC Online SC 379 .
Relevant paragraph from the judgment is extracted here under:
"Para 10...As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial.
At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the Page 12 of 16 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 02:55:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7482/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined accused is required to be tried or not".
18. In the instant case, the High Court has delved into an aspect which was absolutely not warranted and has exceeded its jurisdiction. The aspect about complicity of a person who was involved in the forgery is a disputed question of fact and the same will have to be addressed after a proper appreciation of evidence which can be done only during trial and not at such a nascent stage when summons is served. The Magistrate while considering the fact that the Respondent No. 2 -Santosh Kumar Choudha, was a beneficiary and after considering the scope of summons order had rightly observed that a prima facie case is made out and the same required an adjudication through a trial.
19. The High Court ought to have considered the complicity of the accused in case of forgery, which will have to be addressed after a proper appreciation of evidence and such appreciation of evidence can be done only by undertaking the initial process i.e. by conducting the trial on the aspect of forgery. The summons order was only at an initial stage and at such a nascent stage, the High Court ought not to have recorded the finding on the aspect of forgery.
10. The argument of learned advocate Mr. Dagli is that the petitioner is not complicit with main accused Mr. Sanju Digambar and the prosecution has failed to connect any such evidence on record, which state that the petitioner was in complicity with main accused Mr. Sanju Digambar in commission of the offence. Said argument of learned advocate Mr. Dagli has no force, as CDR on record prima facie established that the petitioner is in complicity with main accused Mr. Sanju Digambar. Even otherwise, in view of above, to test the allegation of complicity, trial is necessary. The FIR therefore, cannot be quashed only on the ground that in the FIR, the prosecution did not asseverate about complicity of the petitioner with main accused Mr. Sanju Digambar. Learned APP has categorically submitted that main accused Mr. Sanju Digambar was on run and the Page 13 of 16 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 02:55:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7482/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined petitioner had talked with him nine times and what talk had taken place at the relevant time has not been disclosed, which prima facie established that the petitioner was in complicity with main accused Mr. Sanju Digambar, who otherwise is partner of the petitioner in multiple transactions in respect of multiple parcels of land. Criminal conspiracy itself is a substantive offence. It is an agreement to commit an offence. Thus, no overt act is even necessary to constitute this offence, unless concerned statute so required. Criminal conspiracy is an independent offence and punishable separately. As criminal conspiracy is hatched in secrecy, it is difficult if not possible to obtain direct evidence in support thereof [See: R.Venkatakrishnan Versus Central Bureau Of Investigation, 2009 (11) SCC 737].
11. Following passage from Russell on Crimes (12th Edn, Vol 1) cited by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Kehar Singh Versus State Of Delhi, 1988 (3) SCC 609 brings out the legal position of criminal conspiracy:-
"The gist of the offence of conspiracy then lies, not in doing the act, or effecting the purpose for which the conspiracy is formed, nor in attempting to do them, nor in inciting others to do them, but in the forming of the scheme or agreement between the parties. Agreement is essential. Mere knowledge, or even discussion, of the plan is not, per se, enough.
12. Therefore, when in the present case, serious allegation of conspiracy is levelled against the petitioner, it cannot be adjudged at threshold on bare reading of the FIR.
13. Another argument of learned advocate Mr. Dagli was that there is delay in filing the FIR. In this regard, recently, the Hon'ble Page 14 of 16 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 02:55:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7482/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined Apex Court in case of Punit Beriwala (supra), held as under:-
"37. It is settled law that delay in registration of the FIR for offences punishable with imprisonment of more than three years cannot be the basis of interdicting a criminal investigation. The delay will assume importance only when the complainant fails to give a plausible explanation and whether the explanation is plausible or not, has to be decided by the Trial Court only after recording the evidence. In this context, the Supreme Court in Skoda Auto Volkswagen (India) Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2021) 5 SCC 795 has held:-
The mere delay on the part of the third respondent complainant in lodging the complaint, cannot by itself be a ground to quash the FIR. The law is too well settled on this aspect to warrant any reference to precedents.."
14. In the case on hand, prima facie impression arises that the petitioner has supported main accused Mr. Sanju Digambar in commission of offence of grabbing private parcels of new tenure land as well as government land. The private persons whose lands have been grabbed, approached the revenue office, but all went in deaf ears, as the Addl. Chitnis, Collector office, Vadodara is also involved in the offence. But, once it is established on record that main accused Mr. Sanju Digambar and others have grabbed the government land as well as new tenure land of innocent people, immediately FIR was lodged by the revenue officer i.e. Deputy Mamlatdar and therefore, at first instance, there is no delay and as such, delay, if any, is sufficiently explained on the part of the prosecution to lodge the complaint.
15. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal & ors., AIR 1992 Page 15 of 16 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 02:55:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7482/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined SC 604, the Hon'ble Apex Court has opined that power of quashing can be exercised very sparingly and that too in rearest of rare case. Relevant para reads as under:-
"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 justified in embarking upon an enquiry 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. "
16. In view of above, the petitioner has failed to make out any case. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SHEKHAR P. BARVE Page 16 of 16 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 02:55:14 IST 2025