Gujarat High Court
Dinesh Chandulal Shah vs State Of Gujarat on 16 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5210/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 08/10/2025
Pronounced On : 16/10/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 5210 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DINESH CHANDULAL SHAH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ABHISHEK M MEHTA(3469) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KUNAL S SHAH(5282) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. CHINTAN DAVE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. By way of this petition, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner has claimed for the following reliefs :
"(A) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to admit and allow this petition, (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, o rder or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR being Ist CR No.286/2014 registered 12.11.2014 with Umra Police Station, District Surat:
(ANNEXURE A).Page 1 of 32 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:25:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5210/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined (C) Pending hearing and final disposal of present petition. Your Lordships may be pleased to stay further proceedings in connection with or pursuant to impugned FIR being 1st CR No 286/2014 registered
12. 11 2014 with Umra Police Station, District. Surat (D) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant ad interim relief's in terms of para 12(C) above, (E) Any other and further relief/s as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be granted."
2. The factual matrix of the case are as under :
2.1 According to the FIR, the petitioner and his siblings got the share in land bearing survey No. 473 paiki, new survey No. 269/2 of village Vesu Taluka, City District Surat.
Originally this parcel of the land belongs to complainant's maternal grand father deceased Ratnabhai Ranchhodbhai Patel. After partition, co-sharer have received share in the aforesaid parcel of land. Daughter of late Ratnabhai Ranchhodbhai Patel was mother of the complainant. She also received share in the land of survey No. 473 paiki and 269/2.
2.2 The family of the complainant consists of three brothers and two sisters. Mr. Ashokbhai was the elder brother, Mr. Arvindbhai was the second eldest, the third one was Mr. Chandrakantbhai and the fourth brother is the complainant. Two sisters are Niruben Jayantilal Patel and Champaben Ratilal Patel. All are settled in their family. In Page 2 of 32 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:25:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5210/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined the FIR the complainant claims that since his native place is Surat, he used to come at Surat. Later on he came to know that bogus sale deed of land bearing survey No. 269/2 was executed upon bogus and forged power of attorney. He noticed one power of attorney dated 30.3.1989, by which his brothers Ashokbhai Naginbai, Arvindbhai Naginbhai and two sisters Niruben Jayantilal Patel and Champaben Ratilal, alleged to have executed power of attorney in favour of Mohandbhai Kalidas Patel. The name of the petitioner Mr. Dinesh Chandulal Shah has been inserted by handwriting in the said power of attorney. It is also noticed that in this power of attorney name of complainant and his brother Chandrakant Naginbhai is missing as a person given the power of attorney. The complaint claims that the signature of Arvindbhai in the power of attorney is forged and bogus.
2.3 Another power of attorney dated 30.3.1989 is also noticed, whereby the complainant and his brother Chandrakant Naginbhai Patel alleged to have executed power of attorney in favour of Mohandbhai Kalidas Patel. Again in this power of attorney name of petitioner Mr. Dinesh Chandulal Shah was inserted by hand writing. According to the complainant, neither he, nor his brother has signed the power of attorney. It is further the case of the complainant that on the basis of the aforesaid power of attorney, the land owned and belonged to the complainant Page 3 of 32 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:25:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5210/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined and his family was sold by petitioner Dinesh Chandulal Shah on 30.3.2002, executing false and forged document in favour of Champakbhai Thakorebhai Patel.
2.4 It is also the case of the complainant that his brother Arvindbhai expired on 19.2.1999. Yet, Dinesh Chandulal Shah, the petitioner without having any authority executed the sale deed on 30.3.2002 which prima facie is a forged and fabricated document, accordingly all subsequent documents executed on the basis of the first forged registered sale deed dated 30.3.2002 are forged sale deed. The complainant filed a Civil Suit being a Special Civil Suit No. 6 of 2013 in a Civil Court, Surat, to cancel all the sale deeds and also filed the FIR being CR No. I-286 of 2014 for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") with Umra Police Station.
2.5 In the context of aforesaid allegations leveled in the FIR, the petitioner approached this Court by way of this petition claiming aforesaid relief.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Abhishek Mehta appearing for the petitioner mainly submitted that the FIR arose out of dispute between family members. He would further submit that even as per the FIR the Civil Suit is already filed. Here it is clear that the dispute is civil dispute by filing FIR.
Page 4 of 32 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:25:54 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5210/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined Complainant has given colour of criminality. Learned advocate for the petitioner would further submit that the FIR is filed almost after 7 years of incident and prior to that in the revenue proceedings and other proceedings, the complainant came to know about execution of two power of attorneys and yet, he has not chosen to file the FIR within the reasonable time period. Thus, learned advocate would submit that FIR is filed after gross delay, without any explanation, or justification, but with oblique purpose to bring petitioner to compromise.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Abhishek Mehta would submit that based upon the power of attorney which is allegedly executed in the year 1989, multiple sale transactions took place. However, the petitioner did not raise any eyebrow against multiple sale deed executed for multiple sale transactions. He would submit further that the N.A proceedings for disputed land were also carried out on the basis of power of attorney. Not only that, public notice were also issued and RTS proceedings were also taken place without any hindrance. He would further submit that the FIR is filed as a last resort by the complainant since he remained unsuccessful in all other proceedings to bring petitioners at compromise table. Learned advocate Mr. Abhishek Mehta also submitted that firstly, the complainant chose to file the Civil Suit but since he failed to get any relief in his favour in the Civil Suit Page 5 of 32 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:25:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5210/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined which is pending for trial, he choses to file FIR after a gross delay of 7 years.
4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Abhishek Mehta taking this Court through the FIR submits that the plain reading of the FIR indicates that the civil dispute has been given a colour of criminal proceedings. He would submit that considering the contention raised in the FIR would at the most prove that on the date of execution of the sale deed qua parcel of the land on 30.3.2002, the power of attorney in favour of the power of attorney holder was ineffective qua Mr. Arvindbhai who expired in the year 1999, however, that would not render the power of attorney as a false and forged document within the meaning of Section 464 of the IPC.
4.2 Learned advocate Mr. Abhishek Mehta further submit that whether the sale deed executed on 30.3.2002 can be said to be a sale deed executed without proper authority or not is a subject matter of Civil Suit but cannot be adjudicated in the criminal proceedings.
4.3 In the premise of the aforesaid argument, learned advocate Mr. Abhishek Mehta having referred to the interim order dated 2.12.2014, submits that at the time of issuance of notice, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has believed existence of strong prima facie case. He would further submit that looking to the aforesaid facts and Page 6 of 32 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:25:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5210/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined circumstances, the FIR on its face, taking into the entirety is abuse of process of law and therefore he submit that the petition deserves consideration.
4.4 Upon the above argument, learned advocate Mr. Abhishek Mehta submits to allow this petition and to quash the FIR in question.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Kunal S. Shah appearing for the complainant-private respondent, referring to page Nos. 24 to 28 on the compilation and submits that the two power of attorney, alleged to have been executed by the complainant and his family members are typed power of attorney whereas the name of the petitioner has been inserted in hand-writing and no one has claimed that who has inserted the name of the petitioner by hand-writing and no short signature of any person are found nearby or at the opening or the closing of the hand-writing, which prima facie makes the power of attorney as suspicious and doubtful document. Learned advocate Mr. Shah further submit that petitioner whose name has to be inserted in power of attorney by handwriting, and claiming that power of attorney is genuine is under obligation to explain that how, why and in which manner petitioner's name is inserted by handwriting in power of attorney which are entirely typed, but since petitioner failed to show or place any explanation qua, the power of attoreny becomes doubtful and Page 7 of 32 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:25:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5210/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined suspicious document. He would further submit that even if power of attorney are treated to be genuine document, one of the person namely Arvindbhai died in 1999 and admittedly, his power of attorney has been used by the petitioner in 2002 and executed the sale deed.
5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Kunal Shah further submits that the sale deed executed in the year 2002, using power of attorney of persons already died in the year 1999, thus prima facie it is executed without power of attorney and without any authority or authorization and as such it falls in the definition of false document as defined in Section 464 of the IPC.
5.2 Further, it is argued by learned advocate Mr. Kunal Shah that the contention raised by the petitioner about gross delay in filing of the FIR etc., can be raised during the trial and the question can be put to the complainant about filing of the delay in FIR. Therefore, filing of the FIR belatedly per se is not a reason to quash the FIR. It is at the most a good defence and can be tested during the trial.
5.3 Learned advocate Mr. Shah further submit that there would be certain situation that the dispute have a effect of a civil wrong as well as it is also a criminal offence in diverse siutation. Thus, it cannot said merely some civil Page 8 of 32 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:25:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5210/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined remedy has been adopted by the complainant, he cannot prosecute the accused for the criminal offence.
5.4 Learned advocate Mr. Kunal Shah referred to judgment in the case of Dharambeer Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand AIR 2024, SC 4499 and submit that the issue raised by the petitioner can be addressed after proper appreciation of evidence which can be done only during the trial and not at nascent stage where summons are served.
6. The above argument are canvassed by learned advocate Mr. Kunal Shah for the respondent to break down the petition.
7. Learned APP, Mr. Chintan Dave, firstly submits that Arvindbhai, one of the person who alleged to have executed the power of attorney in favour of the petitioner undisputedly expired on 19.2.1999. The sale deed in question was executed on 30.3.2002. On that day, the petitioner was not holding any authority on behalf of Mr. Arvindbhai to execute the sale deed for parcel of the land. This is established prima facie from documentary evidence. He would further submit that the investigation of the offence is at initial stage yet, in the investigation it was found that the power of attorney are forged. He took this Court through the copy of two power of attorney deed collected during the investigation and submitted that, in Page 9 of 32 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:25:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5210/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined these entirely typed power of attorney name of the petitioner is inserted by hand-writing. This power of attorney as per its typed version was executed in favour of one Mr. Mohanbhai Kalidas Patel. The statement of Mohanbhai Kalidas Patel was recorded on 20.11.2014 established that he does not know the person namely Ashokbhai Naginbhai, Arvindbhai Naginbhai, Niruben Jayantibhai, Champaben Ratibhai and other person who alleged to have executed the power of attorney in favour of Mohanbhai Kalidas Patel. He has further stated that he has never seen these persons in his life time. He does not acknowledge that he has been given, the power of attorney by these persons regarding the parcel of land, the sale deed of which are executed on 30.3.2020 by Mr. Dinesh Chandulal Shah. Learned APP further submits that Mr. Mohanbhai Kalidas Patel in his statement has further stated that he was serving as a driver with petitioner Dinesh Chandulal Shah. He has further submitted that at the relevant time prevailing law was that the agriculturist cannot sell or purchase the land to any other person who is not living within the radius of 8 kms. Therefore, he submitted that Dineshbhai-petitioner might have prepared this power of attorney but he has categorically stated that he has not signed the power of attorney nor he has taken any power from the owners of the parcel of the land and further states that he does not know anything about the transaction that took place between the parties.
Page 10 of 32 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:25:54 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5210/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined
8. After referring the statement of Mohanbhai Kalidas Patel recorded during the investigation learned APP submit that prima facie it is established that the power of attorney are forged and upon such forged power of attorney the parcel of land belongs to the complainant and his siblings have been sold multiple times. Thus, he submit that a thorough investigation is required.
9. So far as argument of learned advocate Mr. Abhishek Mehta that gross delay took place in registering the FIR, it is submitted by learned APP, by referring to para 34 of the judgment in the case of Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya Vs Anand Athabhai Chaudhary and Ors [(2022) 15 SCC
228)], that the ground of delay in lodging the FIR/complaint, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The aspect of delay is required to be considered during the trial.
10. Learned APP further referred to the judgment in the case of Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakand and ors [(2013)11 SCC 6732], to met with an argument that the FIR is filed for the civil transaction, submits that whether complaint discloses the criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. He further submitted that whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the Court. A Page 11 of 32 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:25:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5210/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined complaint, disclosing the civil transaction may also have a criminal texture, but the Court has to see whether the dispute is essentially of civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence or not.
10.1 He would further submit in the present case insertion of name of the petitioner in the two entirely power of attorney by hand-writing having no signatures at opening or closing of the handwriting and denial by Mohanbhai Kalidas Patel about execution of power of attorney, prima facie, makes the case of forgery. Therefore, he submits that the investigation may be permitted. Accordingly, learned APP submitted to dismiss the petition.
11. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides and paying excess consideration to the rival submissions as well as documents placed on record, I may with profit refer to the view expressed by the Apex Court in the case of the Divine Retreat Center Vs. State (2008) 3 SCC 542 in regards to scope of Section 482 of the Cr.P.Cwherein it is observed as under :
"In our view, there is nothing like unlimited arbitrary jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under sec. 482 of the Code. The power has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution only where such exercise is justified by the tests laid down in the sections itself. It is well settled that sec. 482 does not confer any new power on the High Court but only saves the inherent Page 12 of 32 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:25:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5210/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined power which the court possessed before the enactment of the Code. There are three circum- stances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely (1) to give effect to an order under the Code, (i) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
It is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusation made, and a case where there is legal evidence which on appre-ciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under sec. 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a rea- sonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the func- tion of the trial Judge. Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppres- sion, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death.
The powers possessed by the High Court under sec. 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exer- cise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, Page 13 of 32 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:25:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5210/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage.
It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complain- ant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the pro- ceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceed- ings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under sec. 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and can- not by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings."Page 14 of 32 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:25:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5210/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined
12. In Kurukshetra University Vs State (1977) 4 SCC 451, in regards to nature of jurisdiction conferred on High Court under Section 482 Apex Court held as under :
"It ought to be realized that inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. That statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of the rare cases"
13. In the case of Som Mittal Vs. Government of Karnataka, reported in [2008(3) SCC 753], Apex Court held that the exercise of power under Section 482 is not the rule but an exception and must be exercised sparingly circumspection and in the rarest of the rare cases.
14. In the case of Dinesh Dutt Joshi Vs. State [(2001) 8 SCC 570], the Apex Court underlined principal governing exercise of inherent power for quashing observed as follows :
The principle embodied in the section is based upon the maxim: quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest i.e, when the law gives anything to anyone, it gives also all those things without which the thing itself would be unavail able. The section does not confer any new power, but only declares that the High Court possesses inherent powers for the purposes speci fied in the section. As lacunae are sometimes found in procedural law. the section has been embodied to cover such lacunae wherever they are discovered. The use of extraordinary powers conferred upon the High Court under this section are however required to be reserved, as far as possible, for extraordinary cases."Page 15 of 32 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:25:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5210/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined
15. Thus, the power possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that it decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Normally, the High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material.
16. Applying the aforesaid principle if we go through the FIR it alleges that two power of attorney deed were forged in the year 1989 and they were used to grab the parcel of the land which belongs to the complainant and his family members. Though power of attorney is alleged to have been executed in the year 1989, they were used on 30.3.2002, to execute the first sale deed being a starting point of the subsequent sale deeds.
17. It is undisputed that when the sale deed was executed based upon the power of attorney, one of the person who alleged to have given the power of attorney, Page 16 of 32 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:25:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5210/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined i.e Mr. Arvindbhai had already been expired. According to the FIR he expired on 19.2.1999, yet, this power of attorney was used to execute the sale deed on 30.3.2002, so prima facie it appears that the sale deed dated 30.3.2002 is executed without authorization as one of the person who has given the power of attorney was already expired. Learned advocate Mr. Abhishek Mehta appearing for the petitioner could not controvert this factual statement.
18. Section 464 of the IPC reads as under :
A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record1:
First-- Who dishonestly or fraudulently--
1. makes, sign, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
2. makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
3. affixes any digital signature on any electronic record;
4. makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or digital signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority or a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly-- who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with digital signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Page 17 of 32 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:25:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5210/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined Thirdly-- who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person, sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his digital signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practiced upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.
19. Looking to uncontroverted factual aspects as stated hereinabove that the power of attorney of a person who died in 1999 has been used in the year 2002 to execute a sale deed, therefore, the sale deed is found to be without lawful authority and as such fall to the definition of making false document.
20. The power of attorney which are subject matter of both the FIR collected during the investigation reveals that the name of the petitioner has been inserted by hand-writing in entire typed power of attorney deed without having any short or long signature on either of the side of inserted handwritten string that makes the power of attorney deed a suspicious and doubtful document. The petitioner who made much hue and cry about delayed filing of the FIR has not explain why his name has been inserted by hand writing and if so at what point of time his name was inserted. This insertion/alteration in the power of attorney deed assumed the significance more particularly perusing the Page 18 of 32 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:25:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5210/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined statement of the witness Mohanbhai Kalidas Patel recorded on 20.11.2014. The two power of attorney deed on record are alleged to have been executed in favuor of Mohandbhai Kalidas Patel where the name of the petitioner has been inserted in hand writing. Mohandas Kalidas Patel stayed completely unaware of execution of power of attorney deed. He said that he does not know the person who have executed the power of attorney. He further says that he was just driver of the petitioner except that he is not connected in any way with the alleged transaction.
21 In the aforesaid circumstances, the complainant has made out a prima facie case for the investigation. The matter deserves to be investigated thoroughly.
22. Though it is stated as a family dispute, I see no dispute between the family members. Here according to the complainant, the petitioner by making alteration or forging the power of attorney grabbed the land of the complainant. It is common say of the complainant and his sibling petitioner is nowhere connected with the complainant arbitrarily.
23. As far as submissions of learned advocate Mr. Mehta that the dispute is a civil dispute and given cloak of criminal dispute. It can be said that Apex Court, time and Page 19 of 32 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:25:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5210/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined again putting red line to the growing tendency of the complainant's attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature also held that several disputes of civil nature may also contain the ingredients of criminal offence.
23.1 In addition thereof unexplained fact of insertion of name of the petitioner by handwriting in the power of attorney having no significance on either side of the sentence and no explanation thereof by the petitioner makes it more suspicious. All these aspects deserve thorough investigation in the allegations.
24. In para 8 in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and Ors. Vs State of Bihar and another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751, the Apex Court held as under :
"8. This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of the complainants attempting to give the loak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for setting scores or to pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. But at the same, it should be noted that several disputes of a civil nature may also contain the ingredients of criminal offences and if so, will have to be tried as criminal offences, even if they also amount to civil disputes."Page 20 of 32 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:25:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5210/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined
25. In case of Medchi Chemical and Pharma Pvt. Ltd V/s Biological E. Limited (2000 (3) SCC 269), the Apex Court refers earlier authority and held that criminal and civil remedy can be perused in diverse situation. The relevant observations and finding of Hon'ble Apex Court in para 12 to 17 are as under :-
"12. Section 409 of IPC deals with criminal breach of trust by public servant,or by banker, merchant or agent. In order to prove any application of said provisions, enstrustment has to be proved. In order to sustain conviction under section 409 two ingredients are to be proved. They are (i) the accused, a public servant, or a banker or agent was entrusted with property of which he is duty bound to account for; and (ii) the accused has committed criminal breach of trust. What amounts to criminal breach of trust is provided in section 405 of IPC and same is applicable mutandis mutandis to section 409 of IPC (See : Kailash Kumar Sanwatia v/s. State of Bihar (2003) 7 SCC 399).
13. Section 415 of IPC deals with cheating. It has two parts. First parts relates to property. Second part need not necessarily relate to property. In G.V.Rao v/s. L.H.V.Prasad (2000) 3 SCC 693, Hon'ble Apex Court explained scope as follows :-
"While in the first part, the person must "dishonestly"
or :fraudulently" induce the complainant to deliver any property; in the second part, the person should intentionally induce the complainant to do or omit to do a thing. This is to say, in the first part, inducement must be dishonest or fraudulent. In the second part, the inducement should be intentional."
14. In background of aforesaid legal provisions, if we examine facts of the case, accused being franchisee of Page 21 of 32 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:25:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5210/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. - franchiser was obliged with duty to collect loan installment and remit back to Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. after deducting his commission. For aforesaid task, agreement was also executed between the parties which carries relationship of principal and agent; complainant become principal and accused become agent. Accused was entrusted to collect loan installment and he was to remit the said amount to the complainant company.
15. FIR, translation of which is reproduced herein above indicate that petitioner who was entrusted to collect the loan amount has collected loan installments from 19 different persons in tune of Rs.18,78,578/-, but he did not remit back to the franchiser - company (complainant) but used for his own purpose. He closed his company M/s.Anupam Finlesae (India) Ltd. at both branches ie. Ahmedabad and Chennai.
16. Aforesaid act of the petitioner prima facie establish that the petitioner has committed offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating. Offence of section 409 of IPC was applied on the ground that there was relationship of principal and agent - franchiser and franchisee - complainant and accused. Various contentions was raised by learned advocate Mr.Jain, however, he did not made any submission that amount stated in the FIR by the complainant has not been received by the petitioner or he has not returned the same or remitted to the concerned company or there is some dispute between franchiser or franchisee. No such documentary evidence are placed on record.
17. It is settled principal of law that complaint / FIR can be quashed where allegations made in the complaint even if they are taken on its face value and accepted in entirety, do not constitute any offence or make out case alleged against accused. Further, for this purpose, FIR / complaint has to be examined as whole but without examining merits of allegations. Neither detailed inquiry nor a Page 22 of 32 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:25:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5210/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint is warranted. Complaint / FIR may also be quashed where it is clear abuse of the process of the Court, as and when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd or inherently improbable. The power to quash FIR shall not however lie used to stifle or scuttle an legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. Apt to note that complaint is not required to be verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of FIR / complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence.
26. In case of Punit Beriwala Vs State of NCT of Delhi reported in 2025(o) INSC SC 75175, again the Apex Court has observed this issue. The relevant issue of Apex Court reads as under :
"28. It is trite law that mere institution of civil proceedings is not a ground for quashing the FIR or to hold that the dispute is merely a civil dispute. This Court in various judgments, has held that simply because there is a remedy provided for breach of contract, that does not by itself clothe the Court to conclude that civil remedy is the only remedy, and the initiation of criminal proceedings, in any manner, will be an abuse of the process of the court. This Court is of the view that because the offence was committed during a commercial transaction, it would not be sufficient to hold that the complaint did not warrant a further investigation and if necessary, a trial. [See: Syed Aksari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. State (Delhi Admin.) Page 23 of 32 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:25:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5210/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined (2009) 5 SCC 528, Lee Kun Hee v. State of UP (2012) 3 SCC 132 and Trisuns Chemicals v. Rajesh Aggarwal (1999) 8 SCC 686)."
27. In case of Priti Saraf & anr Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (Live Law 2021 SC 154), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that mere existence of civil remedy is not a ground to quash criminal proceedings. Relevant paras are as under:
23. It being a settled principle of law that to exercise powers under Section 482 CrPC, the complaint in its entirety shall have to be examined on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet and the High Court at that stage was not under an obligation to go into the matter or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on the face of the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet shall be taken into consideration without any critical examination of the same. The offence ought to appear ex facie on the complaint/FIR/charge-
sheet and other documentary evidence, if any, on record.
24. The question which is raised for consideration is that in what circumstances and categories of cases, a criminal proceeding may be quashed either in exercise of the extraordinary powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, or in the exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. often been hotly debated before this Court and various High Courts. Though in a series of decisions, this question has been answered on several occasions by this Court, yet the same still comes up for consideration and is seriously debated.
25. In this backdrop, the scope and ambit of the inherent Page 24 of 32 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:25:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5210/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC has been examined in the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others(supra). The relevant para is mentioned hereunder:-
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable Page 25 of 32 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:25:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5210/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
26. This Court has clarified the broad contours and parameters in laying down the guidelines which have to be kept in mind by the High Courts while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. The aforesaid principles laid down by this Court are illustrative and not exhaustive. Nevertheless, it throws light on the circumstances and the situation which is to be kept in mind when the High Court exercises its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.
27. It has been further elucidated recently by this Court in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others18 where jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 CrPC has been analysed at great length.
28. It is thus settled that the exercise of inherent power of the High Court is an extraordinary power which has to be exercised with great care and circumspection before embarking to scrutinise the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet Page 26 of 32 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:25:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5210/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined in deciding whether the case is the rarest of rare case, to scuttle the prosecution at its inception.
28. Recently in case of Kathyayini Vs Sidharth P.S. Reddy [(AIR 2025 SC 3316)], the Apex Court reiterated the position of law. Relevant paras are as under:
"19. We now come to the issue of bar against prosecution during the pendency of a civil suit. We hereby hold that no such bar exists against prosecution if the offences punishable under criminal law are made out against the parties to the civil suit. Learned senior counsel Dr. Menaka Guruswamy has rightly placed the relevant judicial precedents to support the above submission. In the case of K. Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S. and another,(2020) 14 SCC 552 , this Court has reviewed its precedents which clarify the position. The relevant paragraph from the above judgment is extracted below:
8. It is thus well settled that in certain cases the very same set of facts may give rise to remedies in civil as well as in criminal proceedings and even if a civil remedy is availed by a party, he is not precluded from setting in motion the proceedings in criminal law.
20. In Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and another, (1985) 2 SCC 370 this Court summed up the distinction between the two remedies as under :
21. There are a large number of cases where criminal law and civil law can run side by side. The two remedies are not mutually exclusive but clearly coextensive and essentially differ in their content and consequence. The object of the criminal law is to punish an offender who commits an offence against a person, property or the State for which the accused, on proof of the offence, is deprived of his liberty and in some cases even his life. This does not, however, affect the civil remedies at all for suing the wrongdoer in cases like arson, accidents, etc. It s an Page 27 of 32 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:25:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5210/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined anathema to suppose that when a civil remedy is available, a criminal prosecution is completely barred. The two types of actions are quite different in content, scope and import. It is not at all intelligible to us to take the stand that if the husband dishonestly misappropriates the stridhan property of his wife, though kept in his custody, that would bar prosecution under Section 406 IPC or render the ingredients of Section 405 IPC nugatory or abortive. To say that because the stridhan of a married woman is kept in the custody of her husband, no action against him can be taken as no offence is committed is to override and distort the real intent of the law.
21. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B. and others, (2002)1 SCC 555
17. In view of the preponderance of authorities to the contrary, we are satised that the High Court was not justied in quashing the proceedings initiated by the appellant against the respondents. We are also not impressed by the argument that as the civil suit was pending in the High Court, the Magistrate was not justied to proceed with the criminal case either in law or on the basis of propriety.
Criminal cases have to be proceeded with in accordance with the procedure as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the pendency of a civil action in a different court even though higher in status and authority, cannot be made a basis for quashing of the proceedings.
22. After surveying the abovementioned cases, this Court in K. Jagadish (supra) set aside the holding of High Court to quash the criminal proceedings and held that criminal proceedings shall continue to its lovical end.
29. The above precedent set it clear that if the FIR on its face contains the cognizable offence, merely availability of a civil remedy would not permit the Court to quash the criminal proceedings. Therefore, the contention of learned Page 28 of 32 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:25:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5210/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined advocate Mr. Abhishek Mehta that at the most the power of attorney being invalid power of attorney can only be examined in a civil matter, fails to attract legal fathom. It is a specific case in the FIR that the power of attorney was not executed in favour of the petitioner, it is forged. The complainant and his sibling have not signed power of attorney and incontrovertible facts that power of attorney of one Mr. Arvindbhai died in the year 1999 has been used in year 2002 to sell the parcel of land belongs to him makes at least case of complete investigation.
30. The statement of the witness Mohanbhai Kalidas Patel in whose favour the alleged power of attorney are executed, specifically stated that he does not know about the execution of power of attorney or owners of the disputed parcel land or anything in regards to the transaction which is claimed in the FIR, makes execution of sale deed more doubtful.
31. In the aforesaid circumstances, the prima facie case is made out against the petitioner.
32. The another contention that the FIR is filed after gross delay without any explanation and thus the FIR is unsustainable. Whether mere a delay could be the reason to quash the FIR or not, has been addressed by the Apex Court in case of Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya Vs Anand Page 29 of 32 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:25:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5210/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined Athabhai Chaudhari and Ors. (supra), in para 34 the Apex Court held that on the ground of delay in lodging FIR/complaint, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The aspect is required to be considered during trial. The relevant para reads as under :-
"34. Even otherwise,on the ground of delay in lodging FIR/complaint, the criminal proceedings, can be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . The aspect of delay is required to be considered during the trial and during the trial when the complainant is examined on oath and a question is put to him.her on delay andhe/she can well well explain the delay in his/her cross-examinaiton. But on the aforesaid ground, entire criminal proceeding cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
33. Therefore, the contention that gross delay in filing of FIR cannot be addressed at juncture of addressing the quashing urge of the petitioner.
34. It is also to be noticed that the present petition has been filed at the threshold by the petitioner. By way of this petition, the petitioner intend to quash the FIR, when investigation was just started. The investigations is admittedly the nascent stage. The investigating officer except obtaining the copies of the power of attorney being disputed document and recording the statement of Mohanbhai Kalidas Patel, has not carried the investigation Page 30 of 32 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:25:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5210/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined logically further.
35. It is settled principle of law that the Court should slow in quashing of the FIR at the threshold. The extraordinary powers of this Court is to be used sparingly and in a given case. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Ltd. v/ s. State of Uttar Pradesh [2020 SCC Online SC 958], in para 41 it 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."
36. In the well celebrated judgment in case of State of Haryana Vs. B.Bhajanlal & ors., [AIR 1992 SC 604], Page 31 of 32 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:25:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5210/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined where note of caution has been spelt by Hon'ble Apex Court saying that power to quash FIR should be exercised sparingly. Relevant para is extracted as below :-
"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."
37. In view of above reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the petition and accordingly the petition stands dismissed.
38. Interim relief if any stands vacated. Rule is discharged.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) MARY VADAKKAN
39. After pronouncement of the aforesaid judgment, learned advocate for the petitioner seeks extension of the interim relief granted by this Court so as to reach the higher forum. For reasons stated hereinabove, request is rejected.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) MARY VADAKKAN Page 32 of 32 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:25:54 IST 2025