Ranjanben Ashokbhai Kanani vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 17417 Guj

 R/SCR.A/3078/2015                             CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2021



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

    R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3078 of 2015
                         With
    R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1688 of 2018
                         With
    R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3081 of 2015
                         With
     R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 820 of 2016

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

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

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 ?

============================================= RANJANBEN ASHOKBHAI KANANI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s) ============================================= Appearance in SCR.A. No.3078 of 2015:

MR NIRAD D BUCH(4000) for the Respondent(s) No. 2

MR PRANAV TRIVEDI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

Appearance in SCR.A. No.1688 of 2018:

MR MEETKUMAR J.PANDIT for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR PRANAV TRIVEDI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

Appearance in SCR.A. No.3081 of 2015:

MR MB GOHIL(2702) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 -2 MR PRANAV TRIVEDI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

MR NIRAD D BUCH(4000) for the Respondent(s) No. 2

R/SCR.A/3078/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2021

Appearance in SCR.A. No.820 of 2016:

MR PREMAL NANAVATI SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR HARSH V

MR PRANAV TRIVEDI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

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

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

Date : 18/11/2021

1. All the matters pertain to the same complaint, therefore, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Rule in Special Criminal Application Nos.3078 of 2015, 1688 of 2018 and 3081 of 2015. Learned APP for respondent-State, Mr. Y.S. Joshi and Mr. Vaibyhav A.Vyas learned advocates waive service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.2 in the respective petitions.

3. The petitioners have filed these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short "the Cr.P.C.") praying to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R. No.1-33/2015 lodged with Changodar Police Station, Sanand, Ahmedabad under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC, charge-sheet dated 06.12.2016 being Criminal Case No.8402 of 2016 and the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto.

R/SCR.A/3078/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2021

4. The petitioner in Criminal Misc. Application No.3078 of 2015 is accused no.11. The petitioner in Criminal Misc. Application No.1688 of 2018 is accused no.14. The petitioners in Criminal Misc. Application No.3081 of 2015 are accused nos.12 and 13. All the above accused claim to be bonafide purchasers of the land in question and the accused no.1, who is petitioner in Criminal Misc. Application No.820 of 2016 is the Power of Attorney holder of land in dispute.

5. It is stated that the land bearing Survey No.426/2 admeasuring H.R.A.1-21-41 of Moje Village Moraiya, originally an agricultural land, was converted into non-agricultural use on 11.03.1995 on the basis of the application given by one Gebabhai Nathabhai - father of the respondent no.2 - original complainant. It is alleged that Gebabhai Nathabhai died on 03.05.1978, thus the whole conversion of land from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose could not have been requested by late Shri Gebabhai.

5.1. It is further alleged that on 05.10.1994 a Power of Attorney is purported to have been executed before one notary Khalida Momin, wherein the alleged power is stated to have been given by Babubhai Gebabhai, Ramanbhai Gebabhai, Dasrathbhai Gebabhai and Ratilal Gebabhai as sons of late Shri Gebabhai in favour of accused no.1 - petitioner in Cr.M.A. No.820 of 2016.

R/SCR.A/3078/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2021

Complainant alleges that the thumb impression are not genuine and on the basis of such Power of Attorney several sale deeds have been executed.

5.2 On application being made to the District Level Special Investigating Team, register of notary Khalidaben was seized. Succession entry no.2641 dated 29.11.1995, Sale Deed entry no.3980 dated 20.09.2004 and entry no.4007 dated 06.11.2004 were produced by Talati-cum- Mantri. It is stated that on examining revenue record thumb impression purported to be of respondent no.2 and three others were found to be not genuine, the notary register and other documents were sent for FSL report.

5.3 It is alleged that on the basis of such bogus documents accused no.1 has sold the land to several persons. As many as 13 other persons have been named as accused in the FIR who purchased sub-plot of the said.

6. Mr.Premal Nanavati, learned senior advocate with Mr. Harsh V.Gajjar for the petitioner in Special Criminal Application No.820 of 2016 stated that the impugned FIR is lodged after gross delay of 21 years for which no plausible explanation has been given and therefore the delay is fatal in nature. It is submitted that six civil suits have been preferred at the instance of the complainant being Regular Civil Suit No.70/2014 to 75/2014 before the learned Civil Court at Sanand seeking relief of setting aside of sale deed and perpetual

R/SCR.A/3078/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2021

injunction on the footing that the transactions were fraudulent without consideration; however, when the complainant failed to obtain desired relief, the FIR has been lodged by turning the civil disputes into criminal, for which civil disputes are still pending and thus submits that FIR being vexatious in nature requires to be quashed and set aside.

6.1 It is further stated by learned senior advocate for the petitioner that the N.A. order dated 28.02.1995 passed by the Collector, Ahmedabad has never been assailed before any higher forum by the complainant. The accused have no role to play in granting of N.A. order, as the N.A. application was preferred by deceased Gebabhai himself. It is stated that the said deceased Gebabhai had appeared as a witness in one tenancy proceedings before the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Land Tribunal on 04.02.1992. In succession application before the Talati filed at the behest of complainant, statement of complainant has been recorded wherein it is recorded that Gebabhai died around one year ago from 15.10.1995 and therefore the version stated in FIR by the complainant that Gebabhai died in 1978 is apparent falsehood.

6.2 Learned senior advocate for the petitioner further stated that the complainant has never assailed the entries posted from time to time in favour of several purchasers of the sub-plots of the land in question. It is

R/SCR.A/3078/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2021

submitted that the entries alleged to be wrongly posted carries statutory presumption under Section 135-J of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code and therefore the same having been certified as per due process of law, cannot be doubted after the delay of many years. The Power of Attorney alleged to be false is not procured.

6.3 Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the allegations levelled in the impugned F.I.R. is highly improbable and concocted, as several registered sale transactions have taken place between 2001 and 2004 which has never been disputed by the complainant till 2014, and there being development on land by way of construction of various factories, the FIR lodged is to blackmail lawful owners of the property. It is stated that the entire prosecution is lodged at the behest of Jayantilal Narandas Gohil, who entered into speculative transactions with oblique motive by acting as a Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant.

6.4 It is further submitted that on bare reading of the charge-sheet papers and the evidences collected by the investigating officer during the investigation, no case is made out for any offences, much less the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC.

6.5 Learned advocate for the petitioner relied on the judgments (i) Kishan Singh Vs. Gurupal Singh,

R/SCR.A/3078/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2021

reported in 2010 (8) SCC 775 (ii) Md. Ibrahim Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2009 (8) SCC 751, urging that the present petitions may be allowed by exercising the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

7. Learned advocates appearing for the petitioners in rest of the petitions submitted that, the complainant has woken up from slumber after a period of more than 21 years and has disputed the history in respect of the land since its inception i.e. from the stage when the land was converted into N.A. use and subsequently after Power of Attorney being drawn sale deeds have been executed in favour of the petitioners and third party buyers way back during the period between 1994-2004.

7.1 It is further submitted that during this intervening period after the sale of the land, which is situated within the internal area, various factories have been constructed and therefore it is improbable to believe that the complainant would not have noticed the land being transferred to third parties and would sit idle over the issue for so many years.

7.2 Learned advocates for the petitioners contended that the complainant has created a dispute for blackmailing the lawful owners of the properties who have purchased properties after paying the due consideration and have put up construction during the period between 2001-2005 and that prima facie the FIR

R/SCR.A/3078/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2021

appears to be got up and concocted and lodged with a malafide intention to achieve ulterior motive.

7.3 It is contended that the petitioners have purchased the property from Nandlal J. Khanchandani, Power of Attorney Holder of Ramanbhai Gebabhai, Ratibhai Gebabhai, Babubhai Gebabhai, Dasrathbhai Gebabhai after duly verifying the revenue records.

7.4 On the report of the F.S.L. it is submitted that half heartedly allegations have been made, report is not specific and does not give any specific opinion towards version of the complainant and further submitted that the revenue records suggest that entries in respect of the registered documents have been duly certified after following due process of law by issuing notice under Section 135D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, wherein the persons interested in the land have duly singed the same and have not objected the entry. That the complainant has neither chosen to challenge the revenue entries nor has brought any further action against the petitioners. However, the Regular Civil Suit Nos.70-75 of 2014 appears to have been preferred against the accused no.1. - Mr. Nandlal J. Khanchandani challenging the registered documents and that when no interim relief was granted, false FIR came to be filed. It is stated that Suits have been preferred by Jayantibhai Naranbhai Gohil and Ramchandrabhai Chaudhari as Power of Attorney Holder of the concerned plaintiffs, which itself creates doubts. The said power of attorney holder had tried to indulge into a fraudulent practice of buying litigation and is

R/SCR.A/3078/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2021

triggering the gun of litigation by putting the same on the shoulders of original owners for extraneous reasons by adopting shortcut.

8. Learned advocates appearing for the respondent no.2 - original complainant in the respective petitions, submit that the father of the complainant died in the year 1978 and no mutation entries were effected in favour of the complainant and his brothers. The said land was got converted into non-agriculture use on 11.03.1995, by the accused no.1 by making false signature/thumb impression of a deceased person. The thumb impressions in the Power of Attorney are forged and they are not made by the complainant or any of his brothers.

8.1 It is submitted by learned advocates for the respondent no.2 that the Collector on application made by the complainant inquired into through a Special Investigation Team and during inquiry the documents alleged to have been fabricated and forged were sent to the F.S.L. for verifying the genuineness of the thumb impressions. The F.S.L. submitted its opinion concluding that the thumb impressions alleged to be made by the complainant in the register of the Notary differs with his original thumb impression, while the thumb impressions made by his brothers were unclear, therefore, no definite opinion about the genuineness of those thumb impressions was given. Moreover, it was also opined that the thumb impression purported to be made by the complainant and his brothers on the 135(D) notice in lieu

R/SCR.A/3078/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2021

of its service for the mutation entries bearing serial nos.3880 and 4007, do not match with their original thumb impressions. The advocates for the complainant submitted that accused without any hesitation forged the thumb impressions of the complainant and his family members.

8.2 It is further stated by learned advocates for the complainant that the said FIR is registered only after thorough inquiry conducted by the Special Investigation Team under the supervision of the Collector and the Superintendent of Police, and when the Collector himself has approved the filing of the FIR after detail inquiry, it cannot be said that the registration of the FIR is abuse of process of law or is an act of vendetta, thus urged that no discretion be exercised in favour of the petitioners and the petitions may be rejected.

9. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned advocate for the respondent State submitted that though it is a question of civil rights, but the act of the petitioners shows that it was done with mala fide intention. The allegations of forging the Power of Attorney and misusing the same for their own interest and further the F.S.L. report also supports the case of forgery and fabrication. Thus, submitted that the interest of justice would survive only if the petitioners are sent for trial and thus prayed for rejecting the petitions.

R/SCR.A/3078/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2021

10. A three Judge Bench in case of State of Karnataka vs. M. Devenderappa and another, [(2002) 3 SCC 89], had occasion to consider the ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. By analysing the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C., Apex Court laid down that authority of the Court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court has power to prevent abuse. It further held that Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of Court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. Following was laid down in paragraph 6:

"6......All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist.

Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of

R/SCR.A/3078/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2021

process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto."

Further in paragraph 8 following was stated:

"8.....Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code and the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in some detail by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal."

11. In case of State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, the Apex Court made the following observations:-

"8.1. In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under

R/SCR.A/3078/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2021

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given 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 guide in myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

(a) 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;

(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(c) 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;

(d) 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;

(e) 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;

(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the

R/SCR.A/3078/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2021

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;

(g) 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."

12. The allegation of complainant, Mr. Ratilal Gebabhai Devipujak, is to the effect that the accused no.1 misused the Power of Attorney having forged, false signature/thumb impression of the complainant and his brothers executed before the notary Khalidaben and on the basis of such Power of Attorney several sale deeds were executed.

12.1 The complainant has named about 14 persons in the FIR. The complainant states that father of the complainant Gebabhai Nathabhai had died in the year 1978 and the land was converted into non-agricultural by using false signatures/thumb impression of the deceased father.

12.2 The complainant has also stated that his brother Ramanbhai Gebabhai had died on 21.01.2001, however the notice issued under Section 135(D) pertaining to the sale of land which took place after his

R/SCR.A/3078/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2021

death, also carried the thumb impression alleged to be made by Ramanbhai Gebabhai.

13. It is significant to note that prior to the sale in question, the land was converted into non-agricultural use and thereby has been sold to various persons. Several factories have been constructed on the land in question, as it being situated in internal area. The land has change several hands. The complainant has not ever during this period though fit to challenge all the proceedings. The N.A. Permission was granted on 28.02.1995. What was the necessity of getting the land converted in the year 1995 for N.A. use, does not get disclose in the F.I.R., sale deeds were registered during the year 2000 - 2004. During this period no civil actions were undertaken. Even, as stated by the advocates that no civil action lies against the purchasers of the property.

13.1 Prima facie FIR after a delay of 21 years is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The Power of Attorney is stated to be irrevocable. The allegations are made that criminal machinery has been put into motion by one Jayantibhai Gohil, who is alleged to be a person who indulged into such speculative transactions and initiated frivolous litigation. He is also stated to be a member of political party and certain activities have been brought forward by press release, whereby Jayantibhai Gohil is alleged to be indulged into such arm twisting and blackmailing methods in past. The allegation is also made

R/SCR.A/3078/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2021

that he had tried to harass big corporate house by manipulating the records in the similar manner and it is alleged that the complainant has been used as an instrument of Jayantibhai.

13.2 It is the case of the petitioners that accused no.1 had floated a scheme and sub-plots were purchased by various persons. There has been construction of the factories on the disputed land. The irrevocable power of attorney is stated to be executed with interest in favour of accused no.1 who in turn got the N.A. permission, and thereafter about eleven sub-plots had been made thereafter during the period between 02.03.2000 and 15.01.2007 sales were made and the purchasers have made further sales.

13.3 The original owner of the land, Gebabhai Nathabhai, stated to have died on 03.05.1978. The petitioners have submitted that the said fact is contrary to the proceedings before the revenue authority since Gebabhai had appeared as witness in one tenancy proceeding before the Mamlatdar & ALT on 04.02.1992. Further in succession proceeding before the Talati, statement of complainant has been recorded wherein it is stated that his father died one year ago from 15.10.1995. The revenue entry no.1998 mutated on 21.01.1998 confirms the heirs of deceased Gebabhai Nathabhai. The allegation is that the accused no.1 had forged the Power of Attorney in his favour showing the heirs of Gebabhai

R/SCR.A/3078/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2021

had entrusted him the authority on 05.10.1994. The application for N.A. Permission purported to have been given by Gebabhai Nathabhai in the year 1994. The Mamlatdar had forwarded the papers to the District Collector for appropriate decision on the said N.A. Permission on 14.12.1994. Gebabhai Nathabhai was allegedly asked to pay premium as a condition precedent in the grant of N.A. Permission. The premium was paid on 08.02.1995 and N.A. Permission came to be granted on 22.02.1995. The revenue entry no.2452 dated 11.03.1995 certifies the N.A. Permission.

14. The affidavit-in-reply of the complainant filed in Special Criminal Application No.3078 of 2015 reflects the above chronology of events. It is noted in the said affidavit that an application was made by Ramanbhai Gebabhai for mutation of names of Ramajnbhai, Ratibhai, Babubhai and Dashrathbhai in light of death of Gebabhai Nathabhai one year ago on 25.10.1995 and entry no.2641 dated 29.11.1995 reflects the mutation of the names of the heirs of Gebabhai Nathabhai. These all facts on record creates a shadow of doubt on the death of Gebabhai Nathabhai.

14.1 It is also stated that Ramanbhai Gebabhai passed away on 25.01.2001 and accused no.1 executed a registered sale deed no.229/2001 in favour of accused nos.3 and 4 on 21.03.2001; thereafter registered sale

R/SCR.A/3078/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2021

deed no.238/2001 in favour of accused no.10 was executed on 22.03.2001. Sale deed no. 275/2001 in favour of accused nos.8 and 9 was executed for registration on 31.03.2001. Sale deed No.355/2001 in favour of accused no.14 was executed on 10.04.2001. On 21.01.2003 sale deed no.69/2003 was executed in favour of accused nos.12 and 13. Thereafter, on 24.02.2004 in favour of accused nos.5 to 7, sale deed was executed. Registered sale deed no.1103/2004 was executed in favour of accused nos.12 and 13 on 09.06.2004 and thereafter on 26.08.2004 sale deed no.1679/2004 was executed in favour of accused no.11. Revenue Entry Nos.3980 and 4007 were mutated on 29.09.2004 and 06.11.2004 respectively. The application to the SIT was given on 11.09.2013. The facts suggest that prior to N.A. Permission, the premium was paid. The requisite entry for the N.A. Permission was made in the revenue record.

14.2 Thereafter application for mutation of the names of heirs of Gebabhai was given by Ramanbhai Gebabhai. The names of the heirs were entered by entry on 29.11.1995, thereafter Ramanbhai Gebabhai died on 21.01.2001. This very fact and the facts that the various sale deeds were registered from 2001 to 2004 had not been challenged by the complainant. The complaint was given to SIT in the year 2013 and Regular Civil Suit No.75/2014 was preferred against the accused nos.1 and 11 to 13 on 21.04.2014. Thereafter FSL report of the

R/SCR.A/3078/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2021

handwriting expert opinion was received on 02.03.2015. The said report is also not conclusive of the fact and has not opined about the thumb impressions of brothers of the complainant. Countering the whole proceedings the petitioners alleges that the complainant has in fact played in the hand of one Jayantilal Narandas Gohil, who has filed the Suits as a Power of Attorney against the referred accused.

14.3 All these facts have to be established and proved before the Civil Court. The authenticity and genuineness of the documents are to be examined by the Civil Court. There has been gross delay in filing the FIR which was registered on 24.03.2015.

15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Kishan Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. Vs. Gurpal Singh And Other, reported in (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 775, while dealing with the inordinate delay in filing of the FIR held that:

"21. Prompt and early reporting of the occurrence by the informant with all its vivid details gives an assurance regarding truth of its version. In case, there is some delay in filing the FIR, the complainant must give explanation for the same. Undoubtedly, delay in lodging the FIR does not make the complainant's case improbable when such delay is properly explained. However, deliberate delay in lodging the complaint is always fatal.

22. In cases where there is a delay in lodging a

R/SCR.A/3078/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2021

FIR, the Court has to look for a plausible explanation for such delay. In absence of such an explanation, the delay may be fatal. The reason for quashing such proceedings may not be merely that the allegations were an after thought or had given a coloured version of events. In such cases the court should carefully examine the facts before it for the reason that a frustrated litigant who failed to succeed before the Civil Court may initiate criminal proceedings just to harass the other side with mala fide intentions or the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the other party. Chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustrations by cheaply invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal court. The court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and persecution. In such a case, where an FIR is lodged clearly with a view to spite the other party because of a private and personal grudge and to enmesh the other party in long and arduous criminal proceedings, the court may take a view that it amounts to an abuse of the process of law in the facts and circumstances of the case."

16. Prior and early reporting of the occurrence would give an assurance regarding the truth. No specific explanation is coming forth for delay in filing the FIR; contrary the petitioners have stated that after the sale deed much development has come on the land in question. The complainant has observed silence to all that development on the land in question. Revenue entries of heir-ship have not been challenged. The N.A. proceedings have remained undisputed. Suits have been filed by Power of Attorney of the complainant.

R/SCR.A/3078/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2021

17. Thus, the parameters laid down in the case of State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal and others (supra) should be appreciated to the facts of the case. There has been inordinate delay in filing the FIR and the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide intention and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused.

18. For the foregoing reasons, the petitions are allowed. The impugned FIR being C.R. No.1-33/2015 lodged with Changodar Police Station, Sanand, Ahmedabad, charge-sheet dated 06.12.2016 being Criminal Case No.8402 of 2016, and the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are quashed and set aside qua the present petitioners. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.

(GITA GOPI, J.) Pankaj