Swaraj Narbheshankar Paneri vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 5506 Guj

R/CR.MA/13451/2019                             CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/05/2021




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

       R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 13451 of 2019


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA

==========================================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3    Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
     of the judgment ?
4    Whether this case involves a substantial question

of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?

========================================================== SWARAJ NARBHESHANKAR PANERI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance:

MR HRIDAY BUCH(2372) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR DHRUV K. DAVE for MR MASUDIQBAL H RATHOD(7919) for the

==========================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA

Date : 31/05/2021

CAV JUDGMENT

By way of this application, the applicant prays for quashing

of the F.I.R. being I CR No.61/2019 registered with Sama

Police Station, District: Vadodara for the offence punishable

under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 182 and

R/CR.MA/13451/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/05/2021

506(2) of Indian Penal Code.

Brief facts of the present case are summarized as under:

That, the present applicant had purchased a land bearing

Survey No.37 admeasuring 7689 sq.mtrs. and the land bearing

Survey No.45 admeasuring 11635 sq.mtrs., situated at Village:

Sama by registered sale deed in the year 1999. It is alleged

that the applicant did not make full payment of the said

consideration and the payment of the cheques of consideration

was stopped. That, during the suit proceedings initiated by

respondent No.2 and her family members, the applicant

allegedly executed agreement for payment of money, however,

the present applicant did not pay even the said amount agreed

at the time of the subsequent agreement dated 11.12.2003.

That, on false assurances of the applicant, the informant and

her family members had withdrawn civil suits. That in the year

2013, all the earlier settlement agreements were cancelled and

respondent No.2 transferred an amount of Rs.45,00,000/ to

the account of the present applicant and thereafter instituted

Civil Suit No.204 of 2014 before the learned Civil Court,

Vadodara. That however present applicant is not even an

agriculturist, he had allegedly produced fraudulent documents

R/CR.MA/13451/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/05/2021

at the time of application for non-agricultural use. That, the

present applicant produced fraudulent measurement-sheet of

adjoining land bearing Survey No.44 and has thereby wrongly

got the N.A. Permission from the office of Collector, Vadodara

on 31.1.2014. That, son of respondent No.2 got various

documents under RTI from which respondent No.2 derived

information that the measurement-sheet of the aforesaid plot

as well as name of the occupier were erased. That, on

11.1.2019, son of respondent No.2 - Shri Anant Patel as well

as her nephew Shri Ankur Patel were called by the present

applicant in the office of his friend and at that time threats

were delivered to the effect that they will face dire

consequences if they keep on making applications before the

various authorities against the applicant. Ultimately,

impugned FIR came to be lodged on 8.7.2019 at 14.35 hours

arraigning the present applicant as an accused.

Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and

learned APP for the respondent-State.

It was submitted by learned advocate for the applicant

that the impugned FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of

law. That, none of the ingredients of the alleged offence are

R/CR.MA/13451/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/05/2021

made out on bare reading of the FIR as well as other

uncontested / undeniable document and entire issue of civil

nature is given the color of criminality. That respondent No.2,

unsuccessfully, tried to ventilate her grievance about the

nature of transaction of sale deed with the applicant by filing

and/or participating in the civil and revenue proceedings, but

respondent No.2 has failed therein. Despite that, present FIR is

lodged in July, 2019 without explaining any delay whatsoever

by making false and twisted allegations. That none of the

ingredients of the alleged offences are made out. That

respondent No.2 and her family members have dishonestly

continued with the litigation right from the year 2001 and the

applicant is made to run from pillar to post. The FIR is the last

stroke on the back of the applicant who has purchased the land

in question by paying proper and full consideration. That

before the FIR, respondent No.2 had lodged a written

complaint to the Police Inspector, Sama Police Station and the

Police Commissioner, Vadodara on 22.1.2019. That,

respondent No.2 sent the said complaint also by RPAD to the

office of Police Commissioner on 1.3.2019 and the same was

delivered on 2.3.2019. Immediately, a writ petition was filed

R/CR.MA/13451/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/05/2021

before the Hon'ble High Court seeking direction for

registration of the FIR on or about 13.3.2019. In the said writ

petition, all the aforesaid aspects of the civil litigation as well as

unconditional withdrawal by respondent No.2 were

suppressed and ultimately, a usual order was passed by this

Hon'ble Court on 6.5.2019. That the principal grievance

voiced by respondent No.2 in the civil litigation as well as in

the FIR is about non-payment of the agreed amount of

consideration. As settled legal position, for non-payment of

consideration, the entire transaction cannot be invalidated. The

only remedy available is to institute proceeding for recovery of

the unpaid amount. In all the civil proceedings, respondent

No.2 always wanted the transaction of sale to be declared

invalid. All the suits instituted by her in her individual

capacity are withdrawn unconditionally. The civil suit filed by

her brother and sisters is dismissed and the decision is

confirmed right upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under the

circumstances, when the title of the applicant over the land in

question is clear and unimpeachable, such allegation about

non-payment of agreed consideration would not be sufficient

to initiate and continue the criminal prosecution against the

R/CR.MA/13451/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/05/2021

applicant. It is further urged that the grievance over the grant

of N.A. Permission would also be unsustainable as the

applicant initiated the process of grant of N.A. Permission in

the year 2007. Due to all sorts of allegations and objections

raised by respondent No.2 and her family members and several

third parties, the proceedings continued and ultimately, on

31.1.2014, the Collector, Vadodara granted N.A. Permission.

The challenge to the said order by respondent No.2 and her

family members before SSRD failed as respondent No.2

unconditionally withdrew the said revision application. Thus,

the N.A. Permission has also become final. It is further

submitted that, hence, the allegation made by respondent No.2

in that regard in the FIR would be completely insignificant.

That the prosecution is instituted as counter-blast to the FIR

lodged by the applicant. Having failed in all civil and revenue

proceedings and after having failed to knock out more money

from the applicant, this is a new device adopted by respondent

No.2 so that the applicant settles the dispute once again under

the pressure. That respondent No.2 and her family members

always want to take disadvantage of the escalated price of the

land in question and this FIR is one such attempt. The applicant

R/CR.MA/13451/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/05/2021

is made to run from pillar to post by filing frivolous

proceedings for last 20 years. Ultimately, it was submitted by

learned advocate for the applicant to allow present application

by quashing and setting aside the impugned complaint.

Learned APP for the respondent-State has strongly

objected the arguments advanced by learned advocate for the

applicant and submitted that it is a clear case of offence

punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471,

474, 182 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code. It is further

submitted that land in question was purchased by the

applicant and sale deed was executed in the year 1990, but he

did not make full payment of the said consideration and

payment of the cheques consideration was stopped.

Thereafter, in suit proceedings initiated by the respondent no.2

and her family members, applicant had executed agreement

for payment of money, however, he did not pay the said

amount agreed at the time of subsequent agreement dated

11.12.2003. It is further submitted that false assurance was

given by the present applicant to the first informant and her

family members and therefore, civil suits were withdrawn.

Again in the year 2013, all the earlier settlement agreements

R/CR.MA/13451/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/05/2021

were cancelled and respondent no.2 transferred an amount of

Rs. 45 lacs in the account of the applicant and thereafter, Civil

Suit No. 204/14 was filed before the learned Civil Court,

Vadodara. It is further submitted that however, the applicant

was not an agriculturist, he had produced fraudulent

documents at the time of application for non agricultural use.

That, along with fraudulent documents, measurement sheets of

adjoining land bearing survey no. 44 were also produced

along with getting non agricultural permission from the office

of the Collector, Vadodara on 31st January 2014. That son of

the respondent no.2 received various documents under the RTI

Act from which, the respondent no.2 derived information that

the measurement sheetd of the aforesaid plot as well as name

of the agriculturist were erased. It is further submitted that son

of the respondent no.2 namely Anant Patel as well as her

nephew namely Ankur Patel were called by the applicant in the

office of his friend and at that time, they were threatened that

they will face dire consequences if they will continue to make

application before various authorities against the present

applicant, and therefore, impugned FIR was lodged on

08.07.2019. That, there is clear criminal breach of trust

R/CR.MA/13451/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/05/2021

committed by the present applicant as well as applicant has

intention to defame the respondent no.2 and her family

members, and therefore, ingredients of Section 406 as well as

section 420 of Indian Penal Code are prima facie made out by

the prosecution. That, while creating false documents and

valuable security as defined under Section 30 of Indian Penal

Code, offence punishable under Section 465 as well as 467 of

IPC are prima facie made out against the present applicant by

the prosecution. That, the applicant has used forged document

as genuine to dishonestly achieve benefit. That, considering

the allegations made out in the complaint and other documents

produced on record, the question of dispute as argued cannot

be considered by this court. That, all the allegations made by

the respondent no.2 in her complaint requires evidence to be

recorded before the trial court, and hence, it was requested by

learned APP for the respondent-State to dismiss present

application.

Learned advocate for the respondent no.2 has supported

the arguments advanced by learned APP for the respondent-

State and controvert the arguments advanced by learned

advocate for the applicant. It is submitted that the application

R/CR.MA/13451/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/05/2021

itself is not maintainable for the reason that it involves

disputed questions of facts which requires a detailed inquiry

and investigation which requires leading of oral and

documentary evidences. This application is beyond the scope of

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and

it is not appropriate to raise disputed question of fact for

adjudication under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this

Court. It is further submitted that, the applicant has suppressed

obtrusive facts and no relief as prayed for by the applicant can

be granted. That, the applicant has committed a syndicate

crime with other co-accused by hatching a criminal

conspiracy and investigation is at crucial stage, from which, it

would reveal name of other accused who have altered public

documents, created false record and used false and fabricated

documents as genuine before the Collector, Vadodara and

other competent authority. It is further submitted that by way

of fraud, applicant had altered public documents with a motive

to create false documents and create artificial rights in an

adjacent land (survey no. 42 and 44) other than survey

numbers 37 and 45 of village Sama, Vadodara. That, false

measurement sheets with hissa form were created by the

R/CR.MA/13451/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/05/2021

applicant and used as genuine before the competent authority

to obtain NA permission. It is further submitted that in a part

of the agreement to sell of survey no. 42 and survey no.44, the

applicant stood as a confirming party to the sale deed of survey

no.42 and thereby, without crystallization of the rights, he

had earned an amount of Rs. 9,75,00,000/- which may be the

matter of investigation. It is further submitted that applicant

has created and submitted false and forged documents such as

7/12 abstract of Amreli and same were produced before the

competent authority to obtain N.A. Permission. That,

respondent no.2, before the Hon'ble Apex court, has not lost ,

therefore, sale deed is challenged and same is pending as on

today. The applicant has played fraud on the respondent by

committing breach of agreement dated 11.12.2003 and did

not pay total consideration of the same. That other legal heirs

of the deceased Chimanlal Nanalal have also preferred

appropriate proceedings disputing the consideration of the sale

deed, and therefore, applicant has not paid full consideration

to the respondent No.2 and other legal heirs. That applicant is

in patent practice of entering and executing out of court

settlement and thereby misled the parties to withdraw the suit

R/CR.MA/13451/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/05/2021

proceedings and further by not paying the agreed amount to

the respondent and other legal heirs. That, the applicant has

fraudulently obtained N.A. Permission and therefore, same has

not been produced before the primary authority and revisional

authority. That, the applicant has suppressed the material facts

in the present application. That, one third party has also

challenged the permission of N.A. Granted to the applicant and

same is pending before the division bench. That, NA

permission is obtained by fraud and there are breach of

conditions imposed by the Collector, Vadodara. That, the

applicant is a direct beneficiary of the fraud committed upon

the deponent and others, and therefore, he has hatched the

criminal conspiracy. That submissions made by applicant are

devoid of merits and are misconceived and untenable in law as

well as on facts and relief prayed cannot be granted. It is

requested by learned advocate for the respondent No.2 to

dismiss the present application.

Having gone through the documents produced on record

by the either side, arguments advanced by learned advocates

for the respective parties as well as learned APP for the State, it

appears that the controversy in the present FIR relates to land

R/CR.MA/13451/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/05/2021

bearing Survey No.37 admeasuring 7689 sq.mtrs. and land

bearing Survey No.11635 sq.mtrs., situated at Village: Sama,

District: Vadodara. From the documents produced on record

vide Annexure- "B", it appears that initially the land in

question was purchased by late Shri Chimanlal Nanalal Patel in

the year 1963 from the original owners and upon his death in

the year 1973, the same came to be devolved upon 6 heirs of

late Shri Chimanlal including respondent No.2. From the said

sale deed it appears that the heirs of late Shri Chimanlal

including respondent No.2 sold the land in question to the

present applicant by registered sale deed dated 2.11.1999 and

thereafter name of the applicant was mutated in the Revenue

records vide Mutation Entry No.7185 dated 6.11.1999. As per

the submissions made by learned advocate for the applicant,

since then, the applicant was in possession of the land in

question as an owner. After execution of sale deed in the year

1999, one sister of respondent No.2 - Binaben instituted a suit

being Special Civil Suit No.90 of 2001 seeking cancellation of

the sale deed made in favour of the present applicant and

permanent injunction on the ground that the sale deed is

executed upon misrepresentation, and therefore, fraudulent. It

R/CR.MA/13451/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/05/2021

also appears that, thereafter, the said suit being Special Civil

Suit No.90 of 2001 was withdrawn unconditionally by the

sister of the respondent No.2. It also appears from the record

that present respondent No.2 also filed another suit being

Special Civil Suit No. 112/2001 before the Civil Court,

Vadodara seeking cancellation of sale deed on the same ground

that such sale deed was executed upon misrepresentation and

non-payment of consideration. The said civil suit came to be

unconditionally withdrawn by respondent No.2 on

16.12.2003. It appears that respondent no.2 had withdrawn

her Special Civil Suit No. 112/2001 upon settlement with the

present applicant and the settlement agreement deed

11.12.2003 was executed. As per the said agreement, the

applicant agreed to pay an amount of Rs.5,51,000/- and the

cheques were also delivered to respondent No.2. As per the

submissions of learned advocate for the applicant that out of

the said 3 cheques, one cheque was deposited on the very same

day and another cheque was also honoured. Instead of

depositing the third cheque, respondent No.2 received amount

in cash. It also appears that some correspondence through

advocate issuing legal notice and reply of notice by the

R/CR.MA/13451/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/05/2021

applicant were also made between the parties. There were two

notices issued by the respondent no.2 dated 6.9.2006 and

5.4.2007 requesting the applicant to pay the amount of Rs.

2,25,000/- with interest within a period of 7 days. Another

notice dated 21.4.2007 was also issued by the respondent no.2

cancelling the aforesaid agreement dated 31.12.2003. It is

pertinent to note that no proceedings were initiated by

respondent No.2 for the recovery of the alleged unpaid

amount. Thereafter, another notice dated 23.01.2008 was

issued by the respondent no.2, inter alia, stating that she

received an amount of Rs. 4,25,000/- in furtherance of the

agreement dated 11.12.2003 and the said amount is returned

by cheque dated 23.1.2008. In response of the said notice,

reply was issued by the present applicant on 29.1.2008, inter

alia, contending that there was no question of cancellation of

the agreement as it was acted upon and the entire amount was

paid, and therefore, she cannot back out from the said

agreement. As respondent No.2 was not satisfied, she issued

another notice dated 31.01.2008 once again sending the

cheque conveying that the agreement was cancelled. Again

reply was given by the applicant stating that notice issued by

R/CR.MA/13451/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/05/2021

her was erroneous and the entire amount was paid by him

along with interst and cheque was returned by her. Thereafter,

similar response was given by the respondent no.2 on

respondent No.2 on 7.2.2008. During the exchange of notices,

sisters and brother of respondent No.2 instituted Special Civil

Suit No.352 of 2007 before the learned Civil Court, Vadodara

with similar prayer for cancellation of the sale deed on the

ground of non-payment of consideration and

misrepresentation. Respondent No.2 was also arraigned as

defendant No.3 in the said suit only as earlier suit instituted by

her being Special Civil Suit No.112 of 2001 was

unconditionally withdrawn by her. Along with the plaint, an

application seeking temporary injunction was also preferred

below Exh.5. Initially, ex parte order of status quo was

granted. The applicant appeared and filed a detailed written

statement below Exh.29 opposing the suit as well as temporary

injunction. Thereafter, an application was filed below Exh.28

in the suit with a request to strike the name of the original

defendant No.1. The present applicant also filed an application

below Exh.31 to dismiss the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of the

Code of Civil Procedure. The learned trial Court was pleased

R/CR.MA/13451/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/05/2021

to hear these applications and rejected the application seeking

temporary injunction by the respondent no.2 and vacated ex

parte ad-interim injunction. The learned Trial Judge was also

pleased to allow an application preferred by the applicant and

rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 1(d) of the Code. Being

aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, brothers and

sister of respondent No.2 filed First Appeal No.2548 of 2009

before this Court. At the time of admission hearing, the said

appeal came to be dismissed in limine by this Court vide order

dated 26.10.2009.

It also appears from the record that being dissatisfied

with the order passed by this Court in First Appeal No.2548 of

2009 rejecting an appeal on 26th October 2009, Special Leave

to Appeal (Civil) No.13140 of 2010 was filed before the

Hon'ble Apex Court, which came to be dismissed after hearing

of the parties including the respondent no.2 on 19.1.2012 and

thereafter, the brother of respondent No.2 filed a Review

Petition (Civil) No.1830 of 2012 before the Hon'ble Apex

Court, which came to be dismissed on 11.10.2012. This issue

did not end here and the relative of respondent No.2 also filed

a Curative Petition (Civil) No.210 of 2015, which remained

R/CR.MA/13451/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/05/2021

pending for a period of 3 years and ultimately came to be

dismissed on 21.7.2015. It appears that the challenge to the

sale deed came to be culminated in favour of the applicant in

1999. However, in the meantime, respondent No.2 filed one

more civil suit being Special Civil Suit No.501 of 2008 praying

for cancellation of the sale deed on the ground that the amount

of consideration as agreed in the aforesaid agreement dated

11.12.2003 was not paid. It also appears that Civil Suit

remained pending up to 2010 without any orders. In 2010,

respondent No.2 again settled the matter with the applicant

and accepted an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-. A settlement

agreement-cum-affidavit has been executed by respondent

No.2 on 20.10.2010. On the very same day, a declaration-

cum-affidavit in English language was executed by her. It also

appears that on 16.12.2010, an affidavit was filed by

respondent No.2 and three other sisters before the Collector,

Vadodara giving their consent for grant of N.A. Permission

with regard to land in question and withdrawal of objections

raised by them. However, it was specifically admitted that the

amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was received by respondent No.2, in

the FIR, it is stated that the applicant paid only an amount of

R/CR.MA/13451/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/05/2021

Rs.7,50,000/-. It also appears that no action whatsoever was

taken by respondent No.2 and the aforesaid Suit No.501 of

2008 instituted by her before the learned Civil Court was

unconditionally withdrawn on 30.10.2010. It also appears

from the record that after passing of three years, again,

respondent No.2 issued a notice on 17.7.2013 cancelling the

settlement agreement dated 11.10.2010 on the ground that

applicant did not pay the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- as well as

further amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as alleged and instead, paid

only an amount of Rs.7,50,000/-. It also appears that again

respondent No.2 instituted Special Civil Suit No.204 of 2014

before the learned Civil Court, Vadodara on 5.4.2014 praying

cancellation of the sale deed and all other documents. Such

Special Civil Suit No.204 of 2014 came to be dismissed for

non-prosecution on 7.5.2018.

It also appears that in the meantime, the applicant had

also approached the office of the Collector for granting N.A.

Permission. Certain objections were also raised before the

Collector, Vadodara by the respondent no.2, her relatives and

other persons against the grant of N.A. Permission. Overruling

all the objections, the Collector, Vadodara allowed N.A.

R/CR.MA/13451/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/05/2021

Permission vide order dated 31.1.2014. As, respondent no.2

was not satisfied with the order passed by the Collector,

Vadodara dated 31.01.2014 granting N.A. Permission to the

applicant and said order was challenged by her and her

brother namely Jagdishbhai Chimanbhai Patel by filing

Revision Application No.MVV/BKP/VDD/7/2014 before the

learned Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department

wherein respondent No.2 also applied for being impleaded as

party respondent in another revision application being

Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/VDD/44/2005

challenging Mutation Entry No.785 dated 6.11.1999 in favour

of the applicant. However, this revision application was filed

by third parties, respondent No.2 wanted to implead herself as

party respondent in support of the said revision application. It

appears from the documents produced in the petition vide

Annexure-R(Colly.) that again respondent no.2 settled a matter

and filed a purshish in revision application that she does not

wish to object to the mutation entry in favour of the applicant

and she would withdraw her application. Further affidavit was

also filed iby her in support of the applicant that she does not

wish to prosecute her independent revision application

R/CR.MA/13451/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/05/2021

challenging the grant of NA permission. Ultimately, the

revision application came to be heard by the learned Special

Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department and vide order dated

26.7.2016 allowed unconditional withdrawal as prayed for by

the applicant which include respondent No.2 and her brother.

It also appears from the documents produced vide Annexure-T

to the petition that the order of granting N.A. Permission was

also challenged by one third party - Maheshbhai Chhaganbhai

Patel before this Court by filing Special Civil Application

No.21553 of 2017, which petition came to be dismissed by this

Court vide order dated 11.2.2019. Thus, the issue with regard

to grant of N.A. Permission of the land in question also came to

be concluded.

It also appears that present applicant has deposited the

amount of Rs. Rs.35,00,000/- in the account of son of

respondent no.2, daughter-in-law of the respondent no.2 and

two different bank accounts of the respondent no.2 on 16 th

September 2014 as well as in the account of brother-in-law

Mr.Anant Patel. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 and her

family members insisted for payment of the said amount in

cash, which was not accepted by the applicant and therefore,

R/CR.MA/13451/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/05/2021

the entire amount was returned to the applicant in his account

maintained with Punjab National Bank by RTGS in 2-3 days.

It is impressed to this court from the record that the issue

has noting to do with ongoing land dispute and it is wrongly

highlighted in the FIR by the respondent no.2 stating that the

amount of Rs.45,00,000/- were returned by her to the present

applicant. It also appears from the Annexure-V that the

applicant had also lodged one FIR being I CR No.73/2015 with

Sama Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections

418, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 120B of Indian Penal Code and

in the said FIR, the respondent no.2 is shown as an accused

no.3. It appears that after exhausting all the remedies, the civil

and revenue proceedings, a complaint came to be filed on

22.1.2019 by respondent No.2 addressing to the Police

Commissioner, Vadodara as well as Police Inspector, Sama

Police Station. As this complaint was not registered as

requested by the respondent no.2 filed on 22.01.2019, she

immediately approached this Court by filing Special Criminal

Application No.3337 of 2019 and sought direction for

registration of the FIR and this Court, vide order dated

6.5.2019, directed the Police Inspector, Sama Police Station to

R/CR.MA/13451/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/05/2021

look into the contents of the complaint made by respondent

No.2 and lodge the FIR if any cognizable offence is made out.

Thereafter, one complaint was filed by then son of respondent

No.2 - Anant Madanmohan Patel to the Sayajiganj Police

Station on 16.3.2019 stating that the present applicant and his

friend had delivered threats to him on 11.1.2019. The

statement of the applicant was recorded in connection with the

said complaint on 25.03.2019 and thereafter, statements of his

friend were recorded on 28.3.2019 and ultimately, no case

was found for registration of the FIR and a report in that

regard was submitted and therefore, the said complaint was

filed.

Despite this, respondent no.2 filed impugned FIR, which

has been registered on 8.7.2019. It appears that without

properly verification of the records as well as various orders

passed by the learned Civil Court, this Court as well as the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was registered on 8.7.2019.

It appears that the applicant succeeded himself on the

title upto the Hon'ble Apex Court and having succeeded on the

issue of N.A. Permission upto this Court and respondent no.2

suppressed the material facts in her complaint dated 8th July

R/CR.MA/13451/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/05/2021

2019. An inordinate delay whatsoever is not explained and

allegations are twisted. The transactions between the applicant

and respondent no.2 is of sale of land in question by registered

sale deed and there was no question of entrustment, which

would be the most essential ingredients for constituting the

offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC. In the complaint,

respondent no.2 has never stated that she was deceived with

property by the applicant with an intention to deceive her and

her family members right from inception. On the contrary,

applicant has filed a separate FIR. In the impugned complaint,

it is nowhere case that signature of the respondent no.2 was

forged in any of the document including the sale deed. It

cannot be said from the correspondence and order passed by

the Collector or revenue authority that the applicant has used

any forged document as genuine dishonestly to achieve any

benefit. There cannot be any forgery or any valuable security

for making out any case under Section 467 or Section 465 of

the Indian Penal Code.

It appears that the respondent no.2 and her family

members have dishonestly continued with the litigation right

from the year 2001. The main grievance raised by the

R/CR.MA/13451/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/05/2021

respondent no.2 in civil litigation as well as in the impugned

FIR is about non payment of the agreed amount of

consideration.

A settled legal position would be that for non payment of

consideration, entire transaction cannot be illegal as remedy is

available to institute the proceedings for recovery of the

unpaid amount in the civil proceedings. Respondent no.2

always wanted the transaction of sale to be declared invalid in

all the civil suits instituted by her in her individual capacity

were withdrawn unconditionally. Civil suit filed by her brother

and sister was dismissed and decision was confirmed right up

to the Hon'ble Apex Court. The title of the applicant over the

land in question was found clear and allegation of non

payment of agreed consideration would not be sufficient to

initiate and continue criminal proceedings against the

applicant. The grievance over the grant of N.A. Permission

would also be unsustainable as the applicant initiated the

process of grant of N.A. Permission in the year 2007. The

allegations and objections raised by respondent no.2 and her

family members as well as son, third party, allegations and

objections raised by respondent No.2 and her family members

R/CR.MA/13451/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/05/2021

and several third parties, the proceedings continued and

ultimately, on 31.1.2014, the Collector, Vadodara was pleased

to grant N.A. Permission. The order of granting N.A. Permission

was also challenged by the respondent no.2 and her family

members before the SSRD and failed as she unconditionally

withdrew the said revision application. Thus, issue of N.A.

Permission has also become final and therefore, in that regard,

allegations made by respondent no.2 are completely

insignificant. It also appears from the record that name of the

father of the applicant was in the revenue record of the

aforesaid land from 1954 to 1990. The Deputy Collector, has

also given a detailed report to the Collector in this regard and

thereafter, application for grant of N.A. Permission was

processed. The respondent no.2 has nothing to do with the

issue and she being a seller cannot raise this dispute. So far as

false measurement-sheet over the adjoining land bearing

Survey No.44, respondent no.2 has nothing to do with the said

land at all. It appears that applicant has never sought for any

measurement to be done over Survey No.44. It is impressed to

this court that impugned FIR filed by the respondent no.2 is

counter blast to the FIR lodged by the applicant after failing in

R/CR.MA/13451/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/05/2021

all the Civil and Revenue proceedings and to get more money

from the applicant, so that the applicant would settle the

dispute once again under the pressure. As per the opinion of

this Court from the pleadings and arguments advanced by

learned advocates for the respective parties as well as learned

APP for the respondent-State, this FIR is nothing but abuse of

process of law and is lodged with an ulterior motive to harass

the present applicant.

Hon'ble Apex Court in case of "Vineet Kumar and ors

v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anrs" reported in (2017)

13 Supreme Court Cases 369" has held about to exercise

jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in respect of quashing of

criminal proceedings. After examining the provisions of

Section 482 of Cr.P.C., Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in

para 22 to 25 and 41 as under:

22. Before we enter into the facts of the present case it is necessary

to consider the ambit and scope of jurisdiction under Section 482

Cr.P.C. vested in the High Court. Section 482 Cr.P.C. saves the inherent

power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to

give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the

process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

23. This Court time and again has examined scope of jurisdiction of

R/CR.MA/13451/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/05/2021

High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and laid down several principles which govern the exercise of jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and others, 1977 (2) SCC 699,held that the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. In paragraph 7 of the judgment following has been stated:

"7....In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction."

24. The judgment of this Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has elaborately considered the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. Although in the

R/CR.MA/13451/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/05/2021

above case this Court was considering the power of the High Court to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR, the case arose out of an FIR registered under Section 161, 165 IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. This Court elaborately considered the scope of Section 482 CR.P.C./ Article 226 in the context of quashing the proceedings in criminal investigation. After noticing various earlier pronouncements of this Court, this Court enumerated certain Categories of cases by way of illustration where power under 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or secure ends of justice.

25. Paragraph 102 which enumerates 7 categories of cases where power can be exercised under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are extracted as follows:

"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

R/CR.MA/13451/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/05/2021

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 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."

41. Inherent power given to the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In

R/CR.MA/13451/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/05/2021

case solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. The Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the Categories as illustratively enumerated by this Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal. Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of operation or harassment. When there are material to indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court will not hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding under Category 7 as enumerated in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, which is to the following effect:

"(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." Above Category 7 is clearly attracted in the facts of the present case. Although, the High Court has noted the judgment of the State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, but did not advert to the relevant facts of the present case, materials on which Final Report was submitted by the IO. We, thus, are fully satisfied that the present is a fit case where High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and quashed the criminal proceedings.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, as no offence

punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471,

474, 182 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code is made out by

the prosecution, present application stands allowed.

R/CR.MA/13451/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/05/2021

The impugned complaint being I CR No.61/2019

registered with Sama Police Station, District: Vadodara

for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465,

467, 468, 471, 474, 182 and 506(2) of Indian Penal

Code and all other proceedings initiated pursuant thereto

stands quashed and set aside.

Notice stands discharged.

(B.N. KARIA, J) K. S. DARJI