Gujarat High Court
Vinodbhai Premjibhai Thadoda vs State Of Gujarat on 12 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6740/2016 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 6740 of 2016
==========================================================
VINODBHAI PREMJIBHAI THADODA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS JK HINGORANI(2491) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ANAND B GOGIA(5849) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR BB GOGIA(5851) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR RB GOGIA(5850) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR. SOAHAM JOSHI ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 12/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
2. The petition challenges the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kadi in Criminal Inquiry No. 3 of 2014 whereby the private complaint filed under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code has been rejected under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The said order has been confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No. 57 of 2015, therefore, being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioner has been before this Court.
3. Heard learned advocate Ms Hingorani appearing for Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 22:09:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/6740/2016 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined the petitioner who argued in line of the petition and as per grounds mentioned in the petition and submitted that the petitioner was a Business Facilitator. He was terminated from his service by the State Bank of India (for short "the SBI") without giving any proper reason or opportunity of hearing and thereafter the Bank Manager put a board inside the branch of the bank that no one should do monetary transaction with the petitioner and thereby SBI has defamed the petitioner which falls within the defamation described in Section 500 of the IPC. She would further submit that the learned Trial Court as well as the Sessions Court made serious error by not accepting the plea of the petitioner. She would submit that the order of learned Trial Court and confirmed by learned Sessions Court to more or less align to the technical consideration rather than substantial justice. Hence, deserves to be set aside.
3.1 Upon above submissions, she submitted to allow this petition.
4. Per contra learned advocate Mr. A.B Gogia for the private respondent submitted that for the financial irregularities the petitioner was terminated from his job as Business Facilitator and thereafter SBI for its own precaution put a board inside the branch office of the bank and put a caution and warned the public at large not to carry any financial transaction with the petitioner believing him to be a Business Facilitator of the SBI. Putting up of such board, that too within Branch premises does not Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 22:09:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/6740/2016 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined attract defamation. He would submit that the issue has been thoroughly discussed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court that putting up of such boards is not a defamation. He would submit that in the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court should not delve into ascertain the merits of the case until it is established that pure miscarriage of justice is established, if no interference is made.
4.1 Upon above submissions, he would submit to dismiss this petition.
5. Learned APP Mr. Soaham Joshi in a private complaint being a private dispute between the parties submitted to pass necessary orders.
6. At the outset, let refers to the nature of scope of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which is enlightened in case of Garment Crafts Vs. Prakash Chand Goel reported in (2022) 4 SCC 181, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 15 and 16, held as under:-
"15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 22:09:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/6740/2016 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal [Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) and Others v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and Others, (2010) 1 SCC 217]. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional1 jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.
16. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97 has observed:-
"6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 22:09:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/6740/2016 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to."
7. The cause for filing the private complaint is putting up a board inside the branch that no one should carry financial transaction with the petitioner by the bank and this Board was put by the Manager of the SBI, Highway Branch, Kadi. This board was put to inform the general public and the customer of the bank that the petitioner was terminated from the post of the Business Facilitator of the bank and he is no more working with the SBI. This was a precautionary statement made by the Manager of the bank and kept inside the bank premises putting such board from no corner found to be a defamatory statement. Petitioner perhaps by filing questioned complaint was rather litigating the cause of terminating him from service. Filling complaint for defamation was just pretense but malice behind filing such complaint is to harass such employee. Proceedings of complaint is thus is completely ill-motivated and being malevolent action deserve to nipped in the bud. Learned Trial Court and learned Sessions Court has rightly quell frivolous complaint. In fact, petitioner deserve order of cast for misusing process of the court.
8. Learned advocate Ms Hingorani submitted that the matter has been assigned to her from the Legal Service Authority, considering such submissions of learned advocate Ms. Hingorani, this Court restrains from Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 22:09:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/6740/2016 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined quantifying any cost upon the petitioner, however, deprecate the attempt of the petitioner being frivolous and vexatious.
9. For the reasons stated above, this petition stands dismissed.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) MARY VADAKKAN Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 22:09:23 IST 2025