Gujarat High Court
Hemanshubhai Ramaniklal Shah vs State Of Gujarat on 8 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21780/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 21780 of 2021
==========================================================
HEMANSHUBHAI RAMANIKLAL SHAH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
BHAGIRATH N PATEL(9016) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. KISHAN H DAIYA(6929) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA(1974) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 08/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, learned advocate for the private respondent, and learned APP appearing for the respondent-State.
2. Petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-
"A). That the Hon'ble court may be pleased to admit this Criminal Misc. Application.
B). That this Hon'ble court may be pleased to allow this present Criminal Misc. Application by quashing and setting aside the F.I.R filed at Annexure A as FIR No. 11214031212402 of 2021 registered before Mahuva Police Station, SURAT rural and also be please to quash further proceedings arising out of the same in the interest of justice.
C). Pending admission, hearing and till final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble court may pleased to grant stay as to further proceedings of F.I.R filed by respondent no 2 as FIR Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 04:32:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21780/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined No. 11214031212402 of 2021 registered before Mahuva Police Station, SURAT rural in the interest of justice."
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is that in the year 1997-98, he along with one Lalinbhai Gokulbhai Bhakta embarked upon a joint venture in the gas business and, in due course, incorporated four companies, two of which--namely H & L Gas Private Limited and Bardoli Actelion Private Limited, Tarsadi-- had the complainant, his wife Prashaben, and one Sukhvinderkour as shareholders and directors. The complainant claims to have managed the entire administration of all four companies. Upon the demise of Lalinbhai in 2014, his wife Hanshaben, son Ankilbhai, and daughter Hemaliben entered the management as directors. According to the complainant, having little knowledge of the business, they collectively decided to sell the companies, whereupon two Memoranda of Understanding were executed on 04.02.2016 and 18.07.2016, fixing the valuation of properties and commission for the complainant. It is alleged that Ankilbhai, in collusion with his mother and sister, breached the terms of the MoUs, forged signatures on resignation letters dated 02.06.2008, and clandestinely transferred H & L Gas Private Limited without the knowledge or consent of the complainant and other directors, thereby misappropriating an amount to the tune of three to four crores. The complainant further alleges that threats were extended to him on 19.08.2021 by security personnel, leading to the lodging of the present FIR.
3.1. The case of the petitioner, however, is one of complete innocence. It is contended that even if the allegations in the FIR are taken at face value, no ingredients to attract Sections 465, 468, 471, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code are disclosed against him, Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 04:32:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21780/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined inasmuch as he had no role in the alleged transactions. The petitioner asserts that the primary dispute is essentially inter se between the complainant and the family members of late Lalinbhai concerning management and ownership of the companies. It is his case that he had merely acted in the capacity of a broker, without indulging in any forgery, cheating, or misappropriation, and that his implication is unwarranted and amounts to abuse of process of law.
4. It has been contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner has had no role to play in the commission of the alleged offences. The very initiation of the FIR against him, it is urged, constitutes a gross abuse of the process of law. It is further submitted that the petitioner has neither cheated the complainant nor been instrumental in preparing any forged or fabricated document. According to the petitioner, his role, if any, is confined to that of an intermediary or middleman, and he is not a signatory to the disputed document.
4.1. On the aforesaid premise, it is argued that, the petitioner having acted merely as a conduit, cannot, by any stretch of legal inference, be fastened with criminal liability for offences pertaining to criminal breach of trust, cheating, or fabrication of false documents. Ergo, the continuance of criminal proceedings against him would be wholly unwarranted and unsustainable in law.
4.2. Learned advocate for the petitioner, adverting to the contents of the FIR vis-à-vis Annexure-B, submitted that prior to the registration of the impugned FIR, an application had already been tendered before the Superintendent of Police, Surat (Rural), raising identical allegations. It is pointed out that the Kamrej Police Station, Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 04:32:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21780/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined upon consideration of the said application (Annexure-B), had declined to proceed further on the ground that the complainant had failed to prima facie substantiate the allegations against the accused.
4.3. In light of the aforesaid, it is submitted that the registration of the present FIR and the consequential proceedings, in so far as they pertain to the petitioner, who is alleged to have had no role whatsoever in the commission of the offence, would amount to nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
4.4. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, it is fervently urged on behalf of the petitioner that this Court may be pleased to allow the present petition and quash the impugned FIR along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
5. Per contra, learned advocate appearing for the private respondent submitted that a bare perusal of the FIR discloses, at least prima facie, the commission of cognizable offences including cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust, and the preparation of forged documents purporting to be genuine. It is contended that the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been instituted at a nascent stage, when investigation has not yet progressed. Ergo, the FIR ought not to be quashed at the very threshold. It is further urged that the complicity of the present petitioner is clearly discernible from a plain reading of the FIR itself, and that reliance placed by the petitioner upon Annexure-B is wholly misconceived. In view of the aforesaid, learned advocate for the private respondent prays for rejection of the petition.
Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 04:32:14 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21780/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined
6. Adopting the submissions canvassed by the learned advocate for the private respondent, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State also urged this Court to pass such orders as may be deemed just, proper, and in accordance with law.
7. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length, and have perused the record with anxious consideration. In order to appreciate the precise allegations levelled against the petitioner, it would be apposite to reproduce the relevant portion of the FIR, which reads thus:--
"I, Harishbhai Kantilal Desai, aged 47 years, engaged in the business of trading and residing at Saki, Mistry, Taluka Palsana, District Surat, Mobile No. 9724811555, hereby declare and state the facts of my complaint as under:-
I reside with my wife, Prakshaben, my mother, Taraben, and my son, Vedanta. I earn my livelihood by running a factory in the name of Pranav Oxygen at Surat Chain Hojiwala.
In the year 1997-98, I came into contact with Lalinbhai Gokalbhai Bhakta of Vav, Kamrej. Since I had knowledge and experience in the gas business, namely Sahari Wari Shewa, Lalinbhai persuaded me to start gas companies in partnership. Accordingly, we established four companies, namely: Bardoli Acetylene Partnership Firm, Tarsadi, Taluka Mahuva, District Surat. Gujarat Bio Energy Fuel Pvt. Ltd., Tarsadi, Taluka Mahuva, District Surat. Supab Gases Pvt. Ltd., Hazira. H & L Gas Partnership, Ankleshwar. Out of these, I am a director in (i) H & L Gas Pvt. Ltd., Ankleshwar, and (ii) Bardoli Acetylene Pvt. Ltd., Tarsadi (which was initially a partnership firm later converted into a private limited company). My wife Prakshaben and Sukhwinderben are also directors with me in both companies. I was largely responsible for managing the affairs of all four companies. In the year 2014, upon the death of Lalinbhai Bhakta, his widow Hansaben, his son Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 04:32:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21780/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined Ankil Lalinbhai Bhakta, and his daughter Hemaliben--all residing at Vav village, Bhagat Paliyu, Taluka Kamrej, District Surat (and presently in America)--assumed management of the companies. Since they lacked technical knowledge about the gas business, we executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 04/02/2016, followed by an additional MOU on 18/07/2016, between myself and Ankil Lalinbhai Bhakta. Under these MOUs, the goods and machinery of the companies were sold to me at book value for ₹25,00,000/-, which I deposited in the accounts of (i) Bardoli Acetylene Pvt. Ltd. and (ii) H & L Gas Pvt. Ltd., through my proprietary concern, Ved Enterprise. The MOU also stipulated that in case the movable or immovable properties (including land and buildings) of the companies were sold or transferred, they would be sold at market value after deducting outstanding loans (approximately ₹2,80,00,000/-) and 10% of the enhanced value would be paid to me as commission. As per Clause 3 of the MOU dated 18/07/2016, the property at Tarsadi belonging to Bardoli Acetylene Pvt. Ltd. was to be sold to me at market price. However, without my knowledge, accused Dhinal Bakshi and his wife Amiben Bakshi were made 1.1% shareholders in these companies, and the companies were fraudulently sold to them by Hansaben and her son Ankilbhai. The accused deliberately reneged on the terms of the MOU and refused to transfer the property as agreed. From inception, myself, my wife Prakshaben, and Sukhwinder Kaur were directors in these companies. All licenses were obtained in my name, which are still valid and operational. I also have my proprietary concern Ved Enterprises on the premises of (i) Bardoli Acetylene Pvt. Ltd., Tarsadi and (ii) Gujarat Bio Energy Fuel Pvt. Ltd., Tarsadi, where I have been in continuous possession. However, in collusion with accused Dhinal Bakshi, Hansaben, Ankilbhai, Hemaliben, and their manager Hemaltaben, the accused fraudulently sold H & L Gas Pvt. Ltd. to accused Himanshubhai Shah (Mo. 9824701352) without the knowledge or consent of myself, my wife, or Sukhwinder Kaur. The sale documents were executed in favour of Himanshubhai Shah and his family members without our signatures or resolutions. Despite the agreed Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 04:32:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21780/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined terms, we were neither paid our rightful share of the sale consideration nor the commission stipulated under the MOU. During investigation, I discovered that false and fabricated resignations of myself, my wife, and Sukhwinder Kaur were filed with the Registrar of Companies (ROC) on 02/06/2008 using the digital signature of accused Ankil Lalinbhai Bhakta. Shares belonging to us were illegally transferred without our signatures, without resolutions, and without maintaining share transfer folios, thereby causing us wrongful financial loss. Forged affidavits and false signatures were created and submitted to the ROC as genuine, in furtherance of a pre-planned conspiracy to embezzle ₹3-4 crores, to which we were legally entitled. Further, on 19/08/2021, at around 5:00 p.m., I received a call from Mehulbhai Chhaganbhai Patel, who works in the adjoining factory at Tarsadi, informing me that the name board of my factory was being vandalized by 3-4 unidentified security personnel. On 20/08/2021, at about 11:00 a.m., when I visited my premises, I found four security guards standing near the gate. On questioning them about damaging my board, they threatened me stating that they were acting at the behest of Hansaben, and further threatened me with dire consequences, including murder, if I did not vacate the premises. They hurled abuses and shouted aggressively, forcing me to leave the spot in fear for my life."
7.1. The FIR discloses that one Lalinbhai Gokalbhai Bhakta and the complainant came into business contact and commenced trading. They also established four separate partnership firms. The complainant, along with his wife and one Sukhwinder Kaur, was a Director in the said ventures. Upon the demise of Lalinbhai Gokalbhai Bhakta, his widow, son, and daughter entered into all four companies in the capacity of Directors. Certain Memoranda of Understanding were executed inter se, but it is alleged that thereafter the complainant was defrauded.
Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 04:32:14 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21780/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined 7.2. It is further alleged that two individuals, namely, Dhinal Bakshi and his wife Amiben Bakshi, were inducted as Directors, and that one of the companies ultimately came to be sold to the present petitioner. The gravamen of the accusation is that the signatures of the complainant were forged on certain documents, as a consequence whereof fabricated resignations were prepared, and the complainant's shares in the company were unlawfully transferred without adherence to the mandatory requirement of maintaining the transfer folio.
7.3. The report of the Investigating Officer indicates that, during the course of investigation, the statement of one of the accused, Hansaben, came to be recorded, wherein she attributed the role of "mastermind" or "kingpin" to her son, Ankilbhai. She also disclosed that the present petitioner had purchased the property of one of the companies in question.
7.4. It is significant to note that the investigation is still at a nascent stage. At this juncture, the FIR, on its plain reading, prima facie discloses the commission of offences relating to criminal breach of trust, forgery, and fabrication of false documents, particularly the purported resignations of Directors. Thus, this Court finds no compelling reason to interdict the investigation or to quash the FIR at the very threshold.
8. In this regard, reference may be made to the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamla Devi Agarwal v. State of West Bengal (2002) 1 SCC 555, wherein in paragraphs 7 to 12, the Court has held as under:--
Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 04:32:14 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21780/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined "7. This Court has consistently held that the revisional or inherent powers of quashing the proceedings at the initial stage should be exercised sparingly and only where the allegations made in the complaint or the FIR, even if taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, do not prima facie disclose the commission of an of-fence. Disputed and controversial facts cannot be made the basis for the exercise of the jurisdiction. In R.P Kapur v. State Of Punjab. AIR 1960 SC 866, 1960 Cri LJ 1239 this Court held: (AIR p. 869, para 6).
"It is well established that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Ordinarily criminal proceedings instituted against an accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code, and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage. It is not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of this inherent jurisdiction. However, we may indicate some categories of cases where the inherent jurisdiction can and should be exercised for quashing the proceedings. There may be cases where it may be possible for the High Court to take the view that the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused person may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice.If the criminal proceedings in question is in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by an accused person and it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceeding on that ground. Absence of the requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this category. Cases may also arise where the allegations in the first informa-tion report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not consti-tute the offence alleged; in such cases no question of appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the first information report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. In such cases it would Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 04:32:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21780/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined be legitimate for the High Court to hold that it would be manifestly unjust to allow the process of the criminal court to be issued against the accused person. A third category of the cases in which the inherent jurisdic-tion of High Court can be successfully invoked may also arise. In cases falling under this category the allegations made against the accused person do constitute n offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. In dealing with this class of cases 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 manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and cases where there is legal evi-dence which on its appreciation may or may not support the accusation in question. In exercising its jurisdiction under Section 561-A the High Court would not embark upon an inquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. That is the function of the trial Magistrate, and ordinarily it would not be open to any party to invoke the High Court's inherent jurisdiction and contend that on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence the accu- sation made against the accused would not be sustained. Broadly stated that is the nature and scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 561-A in the matter of quashing criminal proceedings, and that is the effect of the judicial decisions on the point [vide: Shripad G. Chandavarkar, In re AIR 1928 Bom 184, Jagat Chandra Mozumdar v. Queen Empress ILR (1899) 26 Cal 786, Shanker Singh (Dr) v. State of Punjab (1954) 56 Punj LR 54, AIR 1954 Punj 193, Nripendra Bhusan Ray v. Gobinda Bandhu Majumdar AIR 1924 Cal 1018, 25 Cri LJ 1258 and Ramanathan Chettiyar (Accused), v. K. Sivarama Subrahmanya Ayyar (Complainant), . ILR (1924) 47 Mad 722, AIR 1925 Mad 39]."
8. This judgment was reiterated and followed in Hazari Lal Gupta v. Rameshwar Prasad (1972) 1 SCC 452, AIR 1972 SC 484, State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699, AIR 1977 SC 1489, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, AIR 1992 SC 604 and various other pronouncements.
Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 04:32:14 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21780/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined
9. Criminal prosecution cannot be thwarted at the initial stage merely because civil proceedings are also pending. After referring to judgments in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, AIR 1992 SC 604 and Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi (1999) 3 SCC 259 this Court in Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal (1999) 8 SCC 686 held:-
"7. Time and again this Court has been pointing out that quashing of FIR or a complaint in exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court should be limited to very extreme exceptions (vide State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, AIR 1992 SC 604 and Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi (1999) 3 SCC 259).
8. In the last referred case this Court also pointed out that merely because an act has a civil profile is not sufficient to denude it of its criminal outfit. We quote the following observations:
'10. It may be that the facts narrated in the present complaint would as well reveal a commercial transaction or money transaction. But that is hardly a reason for holding that the offence of cheating would elude from such a transaction. In fact, many a cheatings were committed in the course of commercial and also money transactions.' "
10. In Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological B. Ltd. (2000) 3 SCC 269 this Court again reiterated the position and held: ( & 278, paras 2 & 14) "2. Exercise of jurisdiction under the inherent power as envisaged in Section 482 of the Code to have the complaint or the charge-sheet quashed is an exception rather than a rule and the case for quashing at the initial stage must have to be treated as rarest of rare so as not to scuttle the prosecution. With the lodgement of first information report the ball is set to roll and thenceforth the law takes its own course and the investigation ensues in accordance with the provisions of law. The jurisdiction as such is rather limited and restricted and its undue expansion is neither practicable nor warranted. In the Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 04:32:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21780/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined event, however, the court on a perusal of the complaint comes to a conclusion that the allegations levelled in the complaint or charge-sheet on the face of it does not constitute or disclose any offence as alleged, there ought not to be any hesitation to rise up to the expectation of the people and deal with the situation as is required under the law.
XXXXX
14. Needless to record however and it being a settled principle of law that to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code, the complaint in its entirety shall have to be examined on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint and the High Court at that stage has no authority or jurisdiction to go into the matter or examine its correct-ness. Whatever appears on the face of the complaint shall be taken into consideration without any critical examination of the same. But the offence ought to appear ex facie on the complaint. The observations in Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi (1976) 3 SCC 736 lend support to the above statement of law:
1) where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused;
(2) where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and (4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like.Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 04:32:14 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21780/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined The cases mentioned by us are purely illustrative and provide sufficient guidelines to indicate contingencies where the High Court can quash proceedings."
11. In Lalmuni Devi v. State of Bihar (2001) 2 SCC 17 this Court held:-
"8. There could be no dispute to the proposition that if the complaint does not make out an offence it can be quashed. However, it is also settled law that facts may give rise to a civil claim and also amount to an offence. Merely because a civil claim is maintainable does not mean that the criminal complaint cannot be maintained. In this case, on the facts, it cannot be stated, at this prima facie stage, that this is a frivolous complaint. The High Court does not state that on facts no offence is made out. If that be so, then merely on the ground that it was a civil wrong the criminal prosecution could not have been quashed."
12. Again in M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh (2001) 8 SCC 645 this Court held that while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court should be slow in interfering with the proceedings at the initial stage and that merely because the nature of the dispute is primarily of a civil nature, the criminal prosecution cannot be quashed because in cases of forgery and fraud there is always some element of civil nature. In a case where the accused alleged that the transaction between the parties is of a civil nature and the criminal court cannot proceed with the complaint because the factum of document being forged was pending in the civil court, the Court observed:-
"5. Accepting such a general proposition would be against the provisions of law inasmuch as in all cases of cheating and fraud, in the whole transaction, there is generally some element of civil nature. However, in this case, the allegations were regarding the forging of the documents and acquiring gains on the basis of such forged documents. The proceedings could not be quashed only because the respondents had filed a civil suit with respect to the aforesaid documents. In a criminal court the allegations made in the complaint have to be established independently, notwithstanding the adjudication by a civil Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 04:32:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21780/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined court. Had the complainant failed to prove the allegations made by him in the complaint, the respondents were entitled to discharge or acquittal but not otherwise. If mere pendency of a suit is made a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings, the unscrupulous litigants, apprehending criminal action against them, would be encouraged to frustrate the course of justice and law by filing suits with respect to the documents intended to be used against them after the initiation of criminal proceedings or in anticipation of such proceedings. Such a course cannot be the mandate of law. Civil proceedings, as distinguished from the criminal ac-tion, have to be adjudicated and concluded by adopting separate yardsticks. The onus of proving the allegations beyond reasonable doubt, in a criminal case, is not applicable in the civil proceedings which can be decided merely on the basis of the probabilities with respect to the acts complained of."
9. The position of law in quashing FIR under Section 482 has been recently discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC Online SC 185, which is as under:-
"8. It is well established that a High Court, in exercising its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, may issue orders to prevent the abuse of court processes or to secure the ends of justice.
These inherent powers are neither controlled nor limited by any other statutory provision. However, given the broad and profound nature of this authority, the High Court must exercise it sparingly. The conditions for invoking such powers are embedded within Section 482 of the CrPC itself, allowing the High Court to act only in cases of clear abuse of process or where intervention is essential to uphold the ends of justice.
9. It is in this backdrop that this Court, over the course of several decades, has laid down the principles and guidelines Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 04:32:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21780/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined that High Courts must follow before quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold, thereby pre-empting the Prosecution from building its case before the Trial Court. The grounds for quashing, inter alia, contemplate the following situations: (i) the criminal complaint has been filed with mala fides; (ii) the FIR represents an abuse of the legal process; (iii) no prima facie offence is made out; (iv) the dispute is civil in nature; (v.) the complaint contains vague and omnibus allegations; and (vi) the parties are willing to settle and compound the dispute amicably (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335)."
10. Applying the aforesaid ratio to the facts of the present case, when the impugned FIR, on its plain reading, discloses cognizable offences allegedly committed by the petitioner, and the investigation is yet in progress, this Court finds no justifiable reason to interdict the same. The registration of the FIR cannot, in the circumstances, be said to constitute a gross abuse of the process of law so as to warrant the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. The undeniable facts remains at this juncture that resignation of four directors have been fabricated. Their signatures were forged and those resignations were tendered to ROC under the signatures of the accused. This fact at instance establish essential ingredients of offence. Hence, the Court find no reason to intervene at this juncture.
11. Ergo, this Court is of the considered view that the petition is devoid of merits and does not deserve indulgence. The petition is, accordingly, DISMISSED. Notice stands discharged. Interim relief granted earlier, if any, stands vacated.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) MANISH MISHRA Page 15 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 04:32:14 IST 2025