Parveen Mahendra Gandhi vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 6137 Guj

                                                                                     NEUTRAL CITATION




     R/CR.MA/13325/2016                             JUDGMENT DATED: 22/08/2023

                                                                                      undefined




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 13325 of 2016

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

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

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

2      To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                            Yes

3      Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy                  No
       of the judgment ?

4      Whether this case involves a substantial question                  No
       of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
       of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
                          PARVEEN MAHENDRA GANDHI
                                    Versus
                          STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ZUBIN F BHARDA(159) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR AM PAREKH(562) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - State
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

                                Date : 22/08/2023
                                ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule. The present application is filed for seeking

following reliefs:

"B. That this Honourable Court be pleased to

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13325/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/08/2023

undefined

quash and set aside the complaint registered as I

- CR. No. 28 of 2016 lodged by the respondent

No.2 under sections 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of

the Indian Penal Code with Gandevi Police

Station, District - Navsari, against the petitioner,

in the interest of justice.

C. Pending admission and or final disposal of this

petition this Honourable Court be pleased to stay

of investigation of the complaint registered as I -

CR. No. 28 of 2016 lodged by the respondent

No.2 under sections 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of

the Indian Penal Code with Gandevi Police

Station, District - Navsari.

D. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant

such other and further relief as may be deemed

fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of

the case.

E. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to award

cost of this petition."

2.1 Brief facts of the case as per the case of the

applicant in this application are as such that the on

24.5.2016, complainant - Shardaben W/o. Natvarlal

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13325/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/08/2023

undefined

Gandhi lodge complaint against the accused alleging that

accused after the death of her son got false registration

made about the marriage and used it as a true marriage

certificate and thereafter, withdrew money from the Bank

accounts of her son and thereby committed the alleged

offence.

2.2 Further, on 30.11.1984 the applicant was married to

one Sarosh Daruwala at Navsari and out of the said

wedlock, the applicant gave birth to two boys. It is

further the case of the applicant in this application are

as such that the differences started to crop up between

them, the applicant and her husband filed Parsi

Matrimonial Suit No. 1/2004 and prayed for marriage to

be dissolved as it had irretrievably broken down. The learned Judge, Parsi District Matrimonial Court, Surat,

vide judgment and order ordered dissolution of the

marriage. It is further the case of the applicant in this

application are as such that on the other hand, deceased

Mahendrabhai Natwarlal Gandhi was married to one

Daxaben Bachubhai Gandhi and out of the said wedlock

they have two children one daughter namely Ruchi and

one son namely Ronit. After Daxaben expired due to

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13325/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/08/2023

undefined

illness on 05.03.2007, the applicant and deceased

Mahendra Natvarlal Gandhi came in contact with each

other and fell in love with each other and got duly

married on 20.06.2007 and thereafter, both also got

married as per the customs prevalent in the community

on 15.11.2007. It is further the case of the applicant in

this application are as such that the husband of the

applicant suffered from cancer of the tongue and upon

realizing that he will not survive the cancer, executed a

registered Will in the office of Sub-Registrar Navsari

after obtaining a fitness certificate from a Doctor to

certify that the said Mahendrabhai although is ill but he

is mentally capable of executing a Will.

2.3 It is further the case of the applicant in this application are as such that ss per the Will, the

property of Bungalow in which the applicant was

residing with Mahendrabhai and Ronit after her marriage

was bequeathed to the applicant along with all the other

movable assets of the deceased. The complainant who is

the mother namely Shardaben, daughter Ruchi and son

in law Krunal of the deceased husband of the applicant

namely Mahendra had a vested interest in the Bungalow,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13325/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/08/2023

undefined

which has been bequeathed by deceased Mahendrabhai to

the applicant and therefore, they were pressurizing the

applicant to vacate the bungalow and for which the

daughter Ruchi has also filed a Special Civil Suit

No.25/2015 in the month of April 2015 by making false

assertions and by portraying the applicant as a mistress.

The applicant after being served with the summons filed

a suitable reply denying all the allegations leveled

against her. The applicant craves leave to refer to and

rely upon the plaint as well as the written statement at

the time of hearing of the application. The applicant

states that a complaint came to be filed in June 2015

against the applicant in Navsari Rural Police Station on

the basis of which the applicant and Ronit were summoned before the Police Station and their statements

were recorded. The applicant at that time, also submitted

all the necessary documents to satisfy the police officer

that the allegations leveled by the complainant were

false and frivolous and devoid of truth.

2.4 It is further the case of the applicant in this

application are as such that when the complainant did

not succeed in her evil designs of dispossessing the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13325/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/08/2023

undefined

applicant from the bungalow, by taking undue advantage

of the applicant being out of Navsari Town got filed a

false FIR in connivance with the local police on

06.10.2015 in Navsari Rural Police Station similar to the

complaint filed in June 2015 with identical allegations.

It is further the case of the applicant in this application

are as such that the complainant along with unidentified

hardcore individuals like musclemen forcibly entered in

the bungalow and took Ronit Mehendra Gandhi (son) of

the applicant) in captivity and confined him illegally

against his wishes and have took over the forceful

possession of the bungalow. It is further the case of the

applicant in this application are as such that the

applicant on the other hand, could not do anything but file an application praying for anticipatory bail from the

District court, Navsari as the Investigating Officer sought

to arrest the applicant in connection with the false FIR

filed by the accused. The learned Additional Sessions

Judge, initially ordered the learned Public Prosecutor to

instruct the Investigating Officer not to arrest the

applicant till the hearing and final outcome of the

anticipatory bail application.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13325/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/08/2023

undefined

2.5 It is further the case of the applicant in this

application are as such that the applicant thereafter,

upon being granted the protection prepared a complaint

and approached the Inspector General of Police, Surat

Range and complained of the entire conspiracy hatched

by the accused in collusion with the local Police which

had also connived for the purpose of dispossessing the

applicant from the bungalow and thereafter, make the

applicant run under the fear of arrest in connection with

the false FIR registered against her. The IGP in turn

relegated the applicant to the respondent No 2 herein /

Superintendent of Police, Navsari, who when approached

by the applicant, told her that the applicant being an

accused against whom an FIR was already registered, her complaint would not be accepted and she was made

to understand that an accused cannot file a complaint.

The applicant however, approached the Navsari Rural

Police Station with the complaint which was prepared by

her and the same was received by the Police Inspector,

Navsari Rural Police Station.

2.6 It is further the case of the applicant in this

application are as such that the learned Additional

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13325/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/08/2023

undefined

Sessions Judge, Navsari vide judgement and order dated

03.11.2015 rejected the anticipatory bail application filed

by the applicant against which the applicant filed

Criminal Misc. Application No.21623/2015 before this

Hon'ble Court and prayed for being released on

anticipatory bail. It is further the case of the applicant

in this application are as such that this Court vide

order, after hearing the applicant and the learned Public

Prosecutor as well as the learned advocate appearing for

the complainant by observing that the accused is a lady

and prima facie it appears that the transaction is civil

in nature issued Rule make it returnable on 30.11.2015

and in the meantime, restrained the Investigating Officer

from taking any coercive steps against the applicant. It is further the case of the applicant in this application

are as such that the applicant therefore, upon being

granted the protection, once again approached the

District Superintendent of Police and complained of the

inaction and laxity on the part of the respondent no.3 in

registering an FIR despite the serious cognizable offence

was committed by the accused named therein and despite

the fact that the son of the applicant was illegally

confined and kept in captivity.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13325/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/08/2023

undefined

2.7 It is further the case of the applicant in this

application are as such that the applicant therefore

fearing for her son Ronit also filed an application under

section 97 of the Criminal Procedure Code, wherein

notice came to be issued by the learned JMFC, Navsari

against the respondents named in the application who

had allegedly kidnapped and illegally confined Ronit and

who were forcing Ronit to give a statement against the

applicant. It is further the case of the applicant in this

application are as such that the applicant therefore

fearing for her son Ronit also filed an application under

section 97 of the Criminal Procedure Code, wherein

notice came to be issued by the learned JMFC, Navsari

against the respondents named in the application who had allegedly kidnapped and illegally confined Ronit and

who were forcing Ronit to give a statement against the

applicant. It is further the case of the applicant in this

application are as such that the applicant on the other

hand, filed Special Criminal Application No.7078/2015

before this Hon'ble Court and this Hon'ble Court vide

order dated 01.12.2015 was pleased to issue directions

after taking into account of the seriousness of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13325/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/08/2023

undefined

situation as Ronit was kept in illegal confinement and

the applicant feared for his well-being. It is further the

case of the applicant in this application are as such that

after taking into account the fact that the son of the

applicant was removed from the unlawful confinement by

the Police Inspector, Navsari Rural Police station and

produce before the Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Navsari, who in turn recorded the statement of the son

of the applicant.

2.8 It is further the case of the applicant in this

application are as such that despite cognizable offence

was disclosed upon perusal of the complaint and the

applicant having approached the District Superintendent of Police, the police Officer, Navsari Rural Police station

has blatantly refused to register an FIR and on the

other hand, the respondent nos.2 and 3 have registered

an FIR of Ronit Mahendrabhai Gandhi (son of the

applicant) which is not the version as disclosed by Ronit.

The impugned complaint is therefore, one more attempt

by the complainant to pressurize the applicant by

making false allegations of the applicant having forged a

certificate of marriage by getting it registered in the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13325/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/08/2023

undefined

office of Registrar by alleging that the applicationer got

it registered after the death of her son. It is further

the case of the applicant in this application are as such

that the impugned complaint filed against the applicant

being manifestly attended with mala fide intention and

the same being maliciously instituted with an ulterior

motive of harassing the applicant who has not committed

any offence as alleged nor any offence as alleged is

being made out from the allegations levelled in the

complaint and even if the allegations levelled in the

complaint are accepted in their entirety do not make out

any cognizable offence against the applicant. Hence, this

application is preferred.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Zubin F. Bharda for the applicant, Mr. A.M. Parekh, learned advocate for the

respondent No.1 - complainant and Mr. Chintan Dave,

learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the

respondent No.1 - State.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Zubin F. Bharda, representing

the applicant, drawn the Court's attention to the

contents of the First Information Report (F.I.R.) filed by

the mother-in-law of the accused person, Parveen. The

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13325/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/08/2023

undefined

F.I.R. is based on allegations under Sections 467, 468,

471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. He emphasized

that the F.I.R. asserts that Parveen, who identifies

herself as the wife of the deceased - Mahendra Gandhi,

son of the applicant, has withdrawn amounts from

various accounts and properties that belonged to

Mahendra Gandhi, who passed away in 2010. It is also

alleged that Parveen created a fraudulent certificate at

the Sub-Registrar's Office on 28.7.2007, identifying herself

as Mahendra Gandhi's wife, and withdrew amounts from

Axis Bank, Central Bank, etc. The complaint has been

lodged under the mentioned sections of the Indian Penal

Code.

4.2 Furthermore, Mr. Bharda contends that the complaint

itself seems to be motivated by malicious intent and has

been filed by the mother of the deceased. He pointed to

photographs on record showing the marriage between the

deceased, Mahendra Gandhi, and the accused person,

Parveen (applicant), where the complainant's mother was

also present during the marriage ceremony. He

highlighted the registered memorandum of marriage at

the Sub-Registrar's Office in Gandevi on 28.7.2007, as

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13325/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/08/2023

undefined

well as a certificate from the Civil Surgeon at the

Government Hospital, Navsari, dated 4.10.2010, stating

that Mahendra Gandhi was mentally sound despite

suffering from malignancy.

4.3 He further presented a Will executed in favor of

the present applicant by Mahendra Gandhi in the year

2010. Lastly, he drew attention to a prior order dated

1.12.2015 issued by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court

in Special Criminal Application No.7078 of 2020.

According to this order, the complainant had unlawfully

confined the applicant's son, which led to various legal

proceedings. Mr. Bharda argued that the present

complaint is driven by malicious intent, intended to harass the applicant, possibly influenced by a retired

police officer with an interest in seizing Mahendra

Gandhi's properties. He concluded that even on a bare

reading of the complaint, the ingredients of Sections 467,

468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code are not

satisfied. As a result, he contends that the continuation

of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the legal

process, leading to harassment, citing the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13325/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/08/2023

undefined

Haryana V/s Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604).

Consequently, he requested that the present application

be allowed.

5. In contrast, Mr. A.M. Parekh, the learned advocate

representing respondent No.1 (complainant), counters the

argument by stating that upon a bare reading of the

complaint and considering the fact that charge-sheet has

already been filed, it becomes evident that a prima facie

case has been established against the present applicant.

He further emphasizes that the investigating agency has

uncovered material, particularly noting that the temple

priest (Pujari) had provided a statement to the

Investigating Officer, indicating that no marriage had been conducted by him. Instead, someone had

fraudulently obtained documents from him falsely

claiming such a marriage. Mr. Parekh asserts that the

applicant should proceed with the trial proceedings now

that the charge-sheet has been filed based on the

complaint. He contends that there is no basis to quash

the complaint using the powers conferred by Section 482

of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13325/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/08/2023

undefined

6. Mr. Chintan Dave, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor (APP) representing respondent No.1 (State),

directed my attention to the report received from the

concerned Police Station, as well as a copy of the

charge-sheet. He points out to the fact that the temple

priest's statement is included, indicating that no marriage

had been conducted by him. Based on this, he contends

that the complainant's version is corroborated by the

priest's statement, thus establishing a prima facie case.

He asserts that there is substantial evidence against the

applicant to proceed with the legal proceedings in

accordance with the complaint and the subsequent filing

of the charge-sheet. As such, he urges against exercising

the powers granted by Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which should be exercised very

sparingly, referencing various judgments from the Hon'ble

Apex Court.

7.1 I have considered the rival submissions made at the

bar. I have also considered the material produced on

record.

7.2 It is required to refer the provisions of Sections

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13325/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/08/2023

undefined

467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, as

under:

"Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code:-

467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.--Whoever

forges a document which purports to be a valuable

security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or

which purports to give authority to any person to

make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive

the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to

receive or deliver any money, movable property, or

valuable security, or any document purporting to be an

acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of

money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of

any movable property or valuable security, shall be

punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with

imprisonment of either description for a term which

may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to

fine.

Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code:-

468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.--Whoever commits

forgery, intending that the 1[document or electronic

record forged] shall be used for the purpose of

cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extend to seven

years, and shall also be liable to fine.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13325/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/08/2023

undefined

Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code:-

471. Using as genuine a forged 1[document or

electronic record].--Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly

uses as genuine any 1[document or electronic record]

which he knows or has reason to believe to be a

forged 1[document or electronic record], shall be

punished in the same manner as if he had forged such

1[document or electronic record.

Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code:-

120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.--

(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to

commit an offence punishable with death,

2[imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a

term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express

provision is made in this Code for the punishment of

such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as

if he had abetted such offence.

(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other

than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence

punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with

imprisonment of either description for a term not

exceeding six months, or with fine or with both."

7.3 Upon a bare reading of the contents of the First

Information Report (F.I.R.), it is evident that the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13325/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/08/2023

undefined

complainant's mother-in-law has lodged the complaint,

alleging that the wife of the deceased fraudulently

acquired the invested amounts, along with sums present

in various bank accounts, investments such as Public

Provident Fund (PPF), Life Insurance Corporation (LIC),

and even attempted to wrongfully alienate immovable

property by using a deceitful marriage registration

document. The complaint asserts that no marriage took

place between the complainant's son and the wife named

as an accused in the complaint. This assertion lacks

support, other than the statement of the now-deceased

priest.

7.4 However, considering the documentary evidence on record, including (i) photographs from the wedding, which

depict the presence of the complainant herself, (ii) the

marriage registration certificate issued by the Sub-

Registrar, (iii) a certificate from the Civil Surgeon

affirming the mental fitness of the deceased, (iv) the

registered Will executed by the deceased in favour of the

present applicant (his wife), and also taking into account

the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court

on 1.12.2015 in Special Criminal Application No.7078 of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13325/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/08/2023

undefined

2020, it becomes evident that the applicant is the legally

wedded wife of the deceased husband. Furthermore, the

transaction entered into by the applicant with Life

Insurance Corporation (LIC), Public Provident Fund

(PPF), and bank accounts is based on the Will in her

favor. It is also evident that the marriage was officially

registered at the Sub-Registrar's Office during the

relevant period. It is noteworthy that the complainant

herself was present during the marriage of her son with

the present applicant, and this is corroborated by

photographs as well. Additionally, the conduct of the

complainant, particularly in light of the prior proceeding

where a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed an

instance of her son's illegal confinement orchestrated by the complainant and others, speaks volumes in itself.

7.5 Considering these aspects, it is evident that the

prima facie elements of the alleged offenses in the

complaint are not established, and the complaint itself

appears to be filed with malicious intent and an ulterior

motive to harass the present applicant.

7.6 Further, it will also be fruitful to mention the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13325/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/08/2023

undefined

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

State of Haryana V/s Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992

SC 604, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

observed thus -

"In the backdrop of the interpretation of the

various relevant provisions of the Code under

Ch.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 Art.226 or the

inherent powers under sec.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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13325/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/08/2023

undefined

information report or the complaint, even if

they are taken at their face value and

accepted in their entirety do not prima facie

constitute any offence or make out a case

against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first

information report and other materials, if

any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a

cognizable offence, justifying an investigation

by police officers under sec.156(1) of the Code

except under an order of a Magistrate within

the purview of sec.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

sec.156(2) of the Code.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13325/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/08/2023

undefined

(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."

7.7 It is also relevant to refer to the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami

and Another versus State of Uttaranchal reported in

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13325/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/08/2023

undefined

(2007) 12 SCC 1, more particularly para : 23 & 24

thereof, which read as under :

"23. This Court in a number of cases has

laid down the scope and ambit of courts'

powers under Sec. 482 CrPC. Every High

Court has inherent power to act ex debito

justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for

the administration of which alone it exists, or

to prevent abuse of the process of the court.

Inherent power under Sec. 482 CrPC can be

exercised:

[(i) to give effect to an order under

the Code;]

[(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of

court, and]

[(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of

justice.]

24. Inherent powers under Sec. 482 CrPC

though wide have to be exercised sparingly,

carefully and with great caution and only

when such exercise is justified by the tests

specifically laid down in this section itself'.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13325/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/08/2023

undefined

Authority of the court exists for the

advancement of justice. If any abuse of the

process leading to injustice is brought to the

notice of the court, then the court would be

justified in preventing injustice by invoking

inherent powers in absence of specific

provisions in the statute. Discussion of

decided cases."

7.8 It is also relevant to refer the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Jagdish versus

Udaya Kumar G.S. & Another reported in (2020) 14

SCC 552, more specifically, paragraphs 9 to 13 are

relevant, as under:

"9. In Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and another1this

Court summed up the distinction between the two

remedies as under:

"21. ............ There are a large number of

cases where criminal law and civil law can

run side by side. The two remedies are not

mutually exclusive but clearly coextensive and

essentially differ in their content and

consequence. The object of the criminal law is

to punish an offender who commits an offence

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13325/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/08/2023

undefined

against a person, property or the State for

which the accused, on proof of the offence, is

deprived of his liberty and in some cases even

his life. This does not, however, affect the civil

remedies at all for suing the wrongdoer in

cases like arson, accidents etc. It is an

anathema to suppose that when a civil remedy

is available, a criminal prosecution is

completely barred. The two types of actions are

quite different in content, scope and import. It

is not at all intelligible to us to take the

stand that if the husband dishonestly

misappropriates the stridhan property of his

wife, though kept in his custody, that would

bar prosecution under Section 406 IPC or

render the ingredients of Section 405 IPC

nugatory or abortive. To say that because the

stridhan of a married woman is kept in the

custody of her husband, no action against him

can be taken as no offence is committed is to

override and distort the real intent of the

law."

10. In Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi and others

this Court observed:

"10. It may be that the facts narrated in the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13325/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/08/2023

undefined

present complaint would as well reveal a

commercial transaction or 1 (1985) 2 SCC 370 2

(1999) 3 SCC 258 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.

One of the illustrations set out under Section 415

of the Indian Penal Code [Illustration f] is worthy

of notice now:

"(f) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A

means to repay any money that Z may lend to

him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend

him money, A not intending to repay it. A

cheats."

11. The crux of the postulate is the intention of

the person who induces the victim of his

representation and not the nature of the

transaction which would become decisive in

discerning whether there was commission of

offence or not. The complainant has stated in the

body of the complaint that he was induced to

believe that the respondent would honour payment

on receipt of invoices, and that the complainant

realised later that the intentions of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13325/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/08/2023

undefined

respondent were not clear. He also mentioned that

the respondent after receiving the goods had sold

them to others and still he did not pay the

money. Such averments would prima facie make

out a case for investigation by the authorities.

12. The High Court seems to have adopted a

strictly hypertechnical approach and sieved the

complaint through a colander of finest gauzes for

testing the ingredients under Section 415 IPC.

Such an endeavour may be justified during trial,

but certainly not during the stage of investigation.

At any rate, it is too premature a stage for the

High Court to step in and stall the investigation

by declaring that it is a commercial transaction

simpliciter wherein no semblance of criminal

offence is involved."

11. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Kamladevi

Agarwal v. State of West Bengal and others as under:

"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 and Rajesh Bajaj

v. State NCT of Delhi2 this Court in 3 (2002) 1

SCC 555 4 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 Trisuns

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13325/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/08/2023

undefined

Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal5 held: (SCC

p. 690, paras 7-8)

"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 Lal4 and Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT

of Delhi5).

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: (SCC p. 263, para 10) '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."

After referring to various decisions it was

finally concluded as under:

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13325/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/08/2023

undefined

"17. In view of the preponderance of authorities

to the contrary, we are satisfied that the High

Court was not justified in quashing the

proceedings initiated by the appellant against the

respondents. We are also not impressed by the

argument that as the civil suit was pending in

the High Court, the Magistrate was not justified

to proceed with the criminal case either in law or

on the basis of propriety. Criminal cases have to

be proceeded with in accordance with the

procedure as prescribed under the Code of

Criminal Procedure and the pendency of a civil

action in a different court even though higher in

status and authority, cannot be made a basis for

quashing of the proceedings."

12. In R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and others6 this

Court culled out propositions concerning interference

under Section 482 of the Code as under:

"15. Propositions of law which emerge from the

said decisions are:

(1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise

its inherent 5 (1999) 8 SCC 686 6 (2009) 1 SCC

516 jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding

and, in particular, a first information report

unless the allegations contained therein, even if

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13325/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/08/2023

undefined

given face value and taken to be correct in their

entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence. (2) For

the said purpose the Court, save and except in

very exceptional circumstances, would not look to

any document relied upon by the defence.

(3) Such a power should be exercised very

sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR

disclose commission of an offence, the Court shall

not go beyond the same and pass an order in

favour of the accused to hold absence of any

mens rea or actus reus.

(4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the

same by itself may not be a ground to hold that

the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to

continue."

7.9 Therefore, I am of the opinion that this is a fit

case, which warrants the Court to judiciously invoke its

inherent discretion in order to prevent the abuse of the

process of law, more particularly, when an ample

amount of documentary evidence is available on record,

which substantiates the Court's view that no prima facie

offense has been established against the accused person.

This decision aligns with the judgment of the judgment

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13325/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/08/2023

undefined

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhajan

Lal (supra).

10. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.

11. The impugned F.I.R. C.R. No.I 28 of 2016 lodged by

the respondent No.2 under sections 467, 468, 471 and

120(B) of the Indian Penal Code with Gandevi Police

Station, District - Navsari as well as consequential

proceedings, if any, arising out of the impugned F.I.R. is

quashed and set aside.

Rule is made absolute.

(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) DIWAKAR SHUKLA