Gujarat High Court
Mulrajsinh Varuji Solanki vs State Of Gujarat on 8 February, 2023
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
R/SCR.A/1433/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1433 of 2023
==========================================================
MULRAJSINH VARUJI SOLANKI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS KRINA CALLA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
Date : 08/02/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this petition, the applicant seeks to invoke
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of impugned
order dated 10.10.2019 passed by ld. Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Vadgam, below Exh:8 in Criminal Case No.76/2018 by
which, the learned Magistrate, Vadgam, Dist. Banaskantha has
rejected the discharge application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.
2. Dissatisfied with the order the applicant accused preferred
Criminal Revision Application No.3/2020 before the Sessions Court.
The Sessions Court vide order dated 21.11.2022 confirmed the
order of the trial Court.
3. Aggrieved with the orders passed by the Courts below, the
applicant - accused preferred the instant application.
4. Pursuant to the FIR being C.R. No. 24/2015 registered with
Chhapi Police Station, Dist. Banaskantha, the chargesheet came to
be filed for the offence under Sections 465, 467, 468, 504, 506 (2)
R/SCR.A/1433/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2023
and 114 of IPC, which has been culminated into Criminal Case No.
6/2018 and presently, the case is pending before the Mag
sterial Court at Vadgam. Before framing the charge, the app
icant has preferred discharge application, inter alia stating that, the
applicant accused being a revenue officer had discharged and per
ormed his statutory duty and issued notice upon the com
lainant and other interested persons under Section 135D of the Bom
ay Land Revenue Code and after stipulated time, the matter was
forwarded to the higher official for further proceedings. In this con
ext, it is prayed that, the charges against the accused are gro
ndless and he may be discharged.
5. Ld. Trial Court while rejecting the discharge application
recorded that the issue raised by the present applicant is subject
matter of trial and at this stage, it cannot be appreciated.
6. The learned Sessions Court while confirming the order of the
trial Court found that no any illegality committed by the trial Court
and no case is made out for interference.
7. Learned counsel Mr. Majmudar would submit that, while
rejecting discharge application, trial Court should assign proper
reasons as recording of reasons is an essential feature of
dispensation of justice and order without reasons causes prejudice
to the accused as the applicant is unable to know the ground which
weighed with the court in rejecting his application and also causes
impediments in his taking adequate and appropriate grounds before
the higher court and therefore, on this count only, the orders
deserve to be set aside.
8. Alternatively, he would submit that, the applicant has been
arraigned as accused No.8 in the alleged offence. The dispute is
with regard to mutation entry allegedly mutated by the present
R/SCR.A/1433/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2023
applicant as a Talati cum Mantri and the same has been confirmed
by the higher authority. Thus, the applicant cannot be held
criminally liable for his official act.
9. On advance copy, learned APP Ms. Moxa Thakkar submits that
the impugned orders do not require interference as the trial Court
as well as revisional Court have dealt with the issue raised by the
counsel for the applicant and have assigned proper reasons.
10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present
case, it appears that from 29.06.2000 to 10.07.2007, the applicant
was posted as Talati at village Mahi. Pursuant to the application with
respect to land bearing revenue Survey No.419/3 at village Mahi,
the entry No.2982 was mutated on 27.08.2004 and the same was
certified by the competent authority on 29.12.2004. The grievance
raised in the FIR against the applicant is that in connivance with the
co-accused, he mutated the entry in the right of records.
11. In the aforesaid facts and considering the allegations levelled
against the applicant and evidence in support of charge, there is no
allegation that he was the beneficiary of alleged transaction. The
trial Court while rejecting the discharge application, held that
whether the accused had acted in the discharge of his official duty is
a question to be tried by the trial Court.
12. This Court is of considered opinion that, the accused applicant
herein has specifically raised the plea that at the relevant point of
time, when entry was mutated he had acted in the discharge of his
official duty and same is required to be dealt with by the Court by
assigning proper reasons. If we perused the findings of the trial
Court, this Court finds that the issue has not been properly dealt
with by assigning proper reasons. It is settled law that right to
reason is an indispensable part of sound judicial system; reasons at
R/SCR.A/1433/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2023
least sufficient to indicate application of mind to the matter before
the Court; another rational is that the affected party can know why
the decision goes against him; one of the salutary requirement of
natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made.
13. In light of the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in
various judgments and considering the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the impugned
orders passed by the Courts below cannot be sustained mainly on
the ground that the Courts below have not assigned proper reasons
on the issue raised by the applicant accused. Thus, the orders
passed by the Courts below dated 10.10.2019 and 21.11.2022 are
hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court for
its afresh decision. Accordingly, the trial Court shall decide
discharge application at Exh:8 afresh after hearing both the sides in
accordance with law within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not gone
into merits of the case.
14. With the above observations and direction, present petition
stands disposed of.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
SUCHIT
