Gujarat High Court
Keshaji Ravjibhai Barot vs State Of Gujarat on 1 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2821/2015 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 2821 of 2015
==========================================================
KESHAJI RAVJIBHAI BAROT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SADIK A ANSARI(5388) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR MANAN MEHTA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 01/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this petition filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the order dated 18-7-2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 205 of 2012, as well as, order dated 6-2-2010 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana, whereby the application filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay to prefer revision against the order passed in Criminal Inquiry No.36 of 2008, which was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not remaining present before the Court for prosecuting the matter.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
2.1 That the present petitioner had purchased T.C. Turbo car Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu May 01 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 02 04:50:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/2821/2015 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined in 2001, through loan from respondent no. 2 by paying down payment of Rs. 1,30,524.68/-. As per decided terms and norms, the petitioner was required to pay regular installments and he had already paid 27 installments; but anyhow, he was unable to pay one of the installment and so, the respondent no. 2 during business time, took away his car. Although there was a condition, that the respondent no. 2 can seize the car only if the petitioner fails to pay three successive installments; but then also, only on one short installment, car was immediately taken away, and that too, without intimation. The petitioner made all efforts and even tried to assure and convince to pay all the installments, as well as, also showed readiness to compensate the due amount; the respondent had not agreed and instead, had sold off the car without taking consent. So, the petitioner had filed Criminal complaint before Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana, to lodge criminal complaint against respondent no. 2.
Even though the concerned Police authority had submitted report specifying the fraud done by the respondent no. 2; the Ld. Magistrate, had rejected the application. So, being aggrieved, the petitioner had preferred Revision application along with delay condone application, before Sessions Court, Mehsana; however, Ld. Sessions Judge, too, rejected the application on the ground of delay, and that too, without going into the merits of the matter.
3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
4. Ordinarily, the Court should take pragmatic approach in condoning the delay and permit the party to agitate their grievance on merit. However, such aspect is not permissible in Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu May 01 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 02 04:50:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/2821/2015 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined the present case in the peculiar fact that the petitioner, who has questioned the action of the Tata Finance for taking back possession of his car for which the loan was availed and did not pay, by way of Criminal Inquiry No.36 of 2008, could not satisfy the Inquiry Court on the ground mentioned in the inquiry. The reason stated by the learned Inquiry Court indicates that one civil suit being Regular Civil Suit No.153 of 2004 was filed before the Civil Court, Mehsana on the same cause of action and the same has been dismissed and unsuccessfully challenged in a Regular Appeal No.111 of 2006. The civil Court decision squarely covers the issue, which was raised by the petitioner before the learned Inquiry Court and therefore, learned Inquiry Court found insufficient evidence to issue process against the respondent No.2 and dismissed the inquiry u/s 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. According to this Court, apart from declining to condone the delay, the order passed by the learned Inquiry Court is found to be germane and in legal conscience and therefore, present petition is bereft of merit.
5. What could be noticed that the petitioner has not paid installment of the loan, which was availed to purchase car and therefore, Tata Finance, which has hypothecated car, has taken back the possession of the car, as it is the owner of the car till the entire loan is paid. There is no material in tune to attract the offence u/s 406, 420 of the IPC, which is alleged in the inquiry.
6. At the outset, let refer the nature of scope of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which is enlightened in case of Garment Crafts Vs. Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu May 01 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 02 04:50:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/2821/2015 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined Prakash Chand Goel reported in (2022) 4 SCC 181, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 15 and 16, held as under:-
"15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal [Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) and Others v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and Others, (2010) 1 SCC 217]. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional1 jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.
16. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97 has observed:-
"6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu May 01 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 02 04:50:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/2821/2015 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to."
7. According to this Court, no illegality has been committed and therefore, present petition stands dismissed. Notice discharged.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SHEKHAR P. BARVE Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu May 01 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 02 04:50:06 IST 2025