Gujarat High Court
Navinchandra Bhailalbhai Bhatt vs State Of Gujarat on 3 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1179/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 1179 of 2014
==========================================================
NAVINCHANDRA BHAILALBHAI BHATT & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
HL PATEL ADVOCATES(2034) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR CHINTAN DAVE APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 03/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1 By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "CrPC), petitioners prayed following reliefs:
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quash and set aside F.I.R. being C.R. No.I-37 of 2014 registered at Karjan Police Station, Vadodara (Rural) (at ANNEXURE-A hereto) as well as all consequential proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid F.I.R.; (B) During pendency and final disposal of the present petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay further proceedings/ investigation of F.I.R. being C.R. No.I-37 of 2014 registered at Karjan Police Station, Vadodara (Rural) (at ANNEXURE-A hereto); (C) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case;"Page 1 of 14 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:37:55 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1179/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined 2 The brief facts of the case are as under:
2.1 One Ambalalbhai Bhatt, common ancestor, was survived by two sons namely, Ratilalbhai and Ramanlalbhai as well as three daughters, namely, Radhaben, Savitaben and Lakshmiben. The complainant is the son of late Ratilalbhai. He, along with Manjulaben and Shardaben, are heirs of the deceased Ratilalbhai.
Another son of deceased Ambalalbhai's late Ramanlalbhai, he is survived by late Bhailalbhai, further survived by his two sons namely, Navinbhai and Madhusudanbhai and daughter Kapilaben. Navinbhai and Madhusudanbhai are the accused nos.1 and 2 in the FIR. Ambalalbhai was holding ancestral land in Village: Chorbhuj as well as Samlod. According to the FIR, the land bearing Block No. 45 and 3585 of Khata No. 140 belongs to late Ambalalbhai. However, the accused nos.1 and 6, namely, Navinchandra Bhailalbhai Bhatt and Talati-cum-Mantri Narsitsinh Mavsinh Parmar, fabricated and concocted the Sammati-Patrak of the complainant and witness Manjulaben, also false the signature on the Notice under Section 135(D) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, got Page 2 of 14 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:37:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1179/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined mutated the aforesaid land vide Revenue Entry No.1284 dated 13th September, 1983 and subsequent Revenue Entry No.1340 dated 13th July, 1984 in favor of accused nos.2 to 5, have taken away and grabbed the land where the complainant has undivided share.
2.2 With the aforesaid allegation, FIR bearing CR No. I-37 of 2014 was filed with the Karjan Police Station, Vadodara (Rural), on 14th February, 2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 406,420,461,467,468,471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( for short "IPC"). Hence, this petition at the instance of accused nos.1 to 5. 3 At the outset, the learned advocate Mr. P. P. Majmudar, appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner no.2, Rakshaben Madhusudanben Bhatt, has passed away long back ago. Mr. P. P. Majmudar, the learned advocate for the petitioner, submits that the FIR is filed after gross delay of 30 years without making any explanation of the delay. He further submits that the complainant has filed the FIR after losing his contention on every front, i.e., on a civil side as well as on revenue proceedings. He would further submit that the criminal proceeding has been Page 3 of 14 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:37:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1179/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined misused by filing the FIR, which is nevertheless no more than a civil dispute, if to be considered as gospel truth. Mr. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, apart from the afore narrated submissions, submits that that the complainant has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 145 of 2012 before the learned Senior Civil Court, Bharuch for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner nos.1 and 2 for a land situated at Village:
Samlod, Taluka: Bharuch. The learned advocate Mr. Majmudar further submits that in Paragraph No.4 of the plaint, complainant specifically averred that his grandfather has relinquished share from the land situated at Village: Chorbhuj, (the land disputed in the FIR) by executing the family settlement on 22nd May, 1980. The learned advocate Mr. Majmudar, therefore, submits that the pleading in the suit since binding to the complainant, he cannot take a different or divergent view by filing the FIR in question. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar further submits that even the Regular Civil Suit No.145 of 2012, essentially claiming relief for a land situated at Village:
Samlod, has been rejected by the learned Senior Civil Court, Bharuch, by reasoned judgment and decree dated Page 4 of 14 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:37:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1179/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined 21st August, 2015. The complainant carried the challenge by way of first appeal and second appeal unsuccessfully.
He refers to the judgment and decrees placed on record with additional affidavit. Another claim of the learned advocate Mr. Majmudar that the petitioner even lost the RTS proceeding up to the SSRD. He refers to Annexure-I, order passed by the Deputy Collector in RTS Appeal No. 132/2010, which too, was filed by the complainant, has been declined by the Deputy Collector, to intervene with examine the correctness of the Revenue Entry No.1284.
Reference to page no.123 of the compilation has been made to submit that that the Collector, Vadodara has confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Collector in a proceeding under Section 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules.
He further submits that revision to the said Deputy Collector failed to attain any success for the complainant and ultimately, by a range of division, it is confirmed that the Revenue Entry No.1284 mutated in favor of the petitioner is correct, genuine and in accordance with law.
4 Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar in premise of the aforesaid aspect submits that the FIR is nothing but a Page 5 of 14 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:37:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1179/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined frivolous and malicious attempt on the part of the complainant to give a color of criminal offence to the civil dispute, which the complainant lost at every stage. 5 Upon above submissions, the learned advocate Mr. Majmudar, calling the assistance from the judgment in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal [1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335], submits that filing of the FIR is abuse of process of law and hence, a request to the Court to pass the order for quashing the FIR.
6 Per contra, the learned advocate Mr. Maharshi Patel for HL Patel Advocates Associates, vehemently objecting to arguments of the learned advocate for the petitioner, drawn the attention of this Court towards Page No.99 and submits that the FSL Report made by the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, addressed to S.P., Vadodara (Rural), opines that in a Sammati-Patrak and Jawab to Notice No.1284 dated 5th September, 1983, the signature of Harshadbhai Ratilalbhai Bhatt is not matching with the usual and natural signature and thus, the FSL Report, prima facie, indicates that something fishy and wrong to place at the time of posting Revenue Entry No.1284. He, Page 6 of 14 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:37:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1179/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined further submits that the FSL Report, having a presumption of truth showcase that the Revenue Entry No.1284 was mutated by the false and concocted Samanti-Jawab for as much for signature on Notice under Section 135(D) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Thus, he submits that FIR which is sought to be quashed at threshold should not be done by allowing this petition. Accordingly, he submits to dismiss this petition.
7 In addition to the aforesaid arguments and while adopting the same, the learned APP Mr. Chintan Dave, refers to page no.173 that the learned Senior Civil Court discuss about the document produced at Exhibit-78 in a suit proceeding, and submits that the learned Senior Civil Judge has not touched the legality and veracity of the FIR in question and left it to decision of the appropriate proceeding, and therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, he submits that the petitioner cannot claim any benefit of the judgment delivered in a civil proceeding in his favor confirmed to the High Court in second appeal.
8 Long and extensive arguments of the learned advocate for both the sides are heard. Anxious consideration has been Page 7 of 14 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:37:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1179/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined paid to the slew of the document produced on record. 9 The FIR spells as under:
9.1 The incident is of 1983, precisely on 13 th September, 1983, has been reported on 14th February, 2014. Reading of the FIR discloses no explanation on the gross delay of more than 30 years.
9.2 The complainant Mr. Harshadbhai Ratilalbhai Bhatt alleges that the accused nos.1 and 6 in connivance with each other have taken away land of the complainant by posting false Revenue Entry No.1284, forging the signature of him and his sister Manjulaben on Sammati-
Patrak as well as on Notice under Section 135(D). No such contention was taken by the complainant in any previous proceedings. Manjulaben, the sister of the complainant, till date, remained silent on the issue that her signature has been fabricated and concocted. The FIR is totally silent on the aspect of previous litigation between the parties wherein the complainant lost. 10 After taking into the aforesaid aspect, let jump to the pleading averred by the complainant in the Regular Civil Page 8 of 14 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:37:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1179/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined Suit No.145 of 2012. Paragraph No.4 in the plaint is material to the dispute. It is in vernacular tongue, but the closest translation of the said in English language reads as under:
"(4) On 22/05/1980, a partition agreement was executed between both respondents at Chorbhuj, Taluka: Karjan, in the presence of the plaintiff's father. As per the agreement, the plaintiff's father relinquished his rights over the land, houses, cattle-
shed situated at Chorbhuj, Taluka: Karjan, District:
Vadodara, which were registered in the name of Ambalal Mahashankar, the father of Ratilal Ambalal, i.e. the plaintiff's grandfather. Similarly, the plaintiff's father relinquished his rights in favor of the present respondent in respect of the joint property located at Chorbhuj, which was held in the name of the respondent's father.
Likewise, the respondents relinquished their rights and claims in favor of the plaintiffs' father over the property situated at Samlod, Taluka & District:
Bharuch, which was jointly owned by the plaintiff's father and the respondents' father; and have agreed to appear before Talati and provide a written undertaking of relinquishment, as and when required."
11 Learned advocate Mr. Maharshi Patel, appearing for the complainant, could not point out any different propositions then what stated herein above. Sections 20 and 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 refer to admissions by person. Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:37:55 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1179/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined The statute says that they are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them.
12 The aforesaid admission on the part of the complainant herein made prior in point of time in the FIR being suppressed in the FIR, cling the entire issue. After reading the aforesaid admission on the part of the complainant, no issue remains to decide except to quash the FIR found it to be malicious and vexatious. It is admitted position that the revenue proceeding started by the complainant against the petitioner prior to filing of the FIR resulted against the complainant. Posteriorly, all subsequent orders i.e., order passed by the Collector, Vadodara and SSRD does not found favor of the complainant. Thus, this Court, without any hesitation, reaches to the conclusion that the FIR is a last attempt on the part of the complainant after losing all battles. The petition deserves consideration. 13 At this juncture, this Court may refer to the Order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing the rule on 10th April, 2014:
"Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the averments in the civil suit instituted by the complainant admitting the relinquishment of the right in the property Page 10 of 14 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:37:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1179/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined by his grand-father in respect of which the FIR is filed disputing such relinquishment. It is argued that thus in two different documents, contradictory stand is taken and the FIRe field of electronic service delivery. E-Governance is the logical next step in the use of ICT in s is misuse of process of law. It is argued that after 30 years, such frivolous dispute is sought to be raised in the FIR.
Rule. Learned APP waives service. Ad-interm relief in terms of Paragraph-23(B) is granted.
Direct Service for rest is permitted."
14 The contention alleviated by the learned advocate Mr. Maharshi Patel, duly supported by the learned APP Mr. Chintan Dave, that the Forensic Science Laboratory has opined that the signature of the Sammati-Patrak is not matching with the natural signature of the complainant which, prima facie, establish the case of the forgery, cheating and creating concocted documents. Apt to note that this FSL Report cannot have any overriding effect on the solemn admission made by the complainant in a civil proceeding by way of pleading. Apart from that the evidentiary value of the FSL Report found to be secondary in character and cannot be a sole reason to believe, in peculiar facts of this case that the signature of the complainant was concocted. The peculiar facts of this case that the complainant did not raise the dispute for more Page 11 of 14 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:37:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1179/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined than 30 years.
15 In the premises of the aforesaid reasons, this Court refers to the judgment in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal (supra), whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court summed up the position of law as under:
"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 Page 12 of 14 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:37:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1179/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontrovered 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 deceased.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable 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."
16 Applying the finding nos. 1, 3 and 7 of the aforesaid judgment, this petition deserves consideration. Page 13 of 14 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:37:55 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1179/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined 17 In the result, the petition is allowed. Impugned FIR being CR No. I-37 of 2014 and all consequential proceedings arise from the said FIR qua the petitioners is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) JIGAR Page 14 of 14 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:37:55 IST 2025