Chhabaria Bharat Dhanrajmal vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 8147 Guj

                                                                                              NEUTRAL CITATION




      R/CR.MA/14857/2021                                         ORDER DATED: 08/11/2023

                                                                                                 undefined




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

      R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
                    FIR/ORDER) NO. 14857 of 2021

==========================================================
                           CHHABARIA BHARAT DHANRAJMAL
                                      Versus
                                STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VK JOSHI(2329) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

                                     Date : 08/11/2023

                                      ORAL ORDER

1. The present application is filed for the following

reliefs:

"8(A) Be pleased to admit and allow this Criminal Misc.Application;

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned FIR being C.R.No.I-01/2017 Kalupur Police Station, Dist.Ahmedabad for the offences u/s 406, 452, 467, 468, 114 of the Indian Penal Code, registered on 05/01/2017 in the interest of justice.

(C) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the further proceedings of the impugned FIR being C.R.No.I-01/2017 Kalupur Police Station, Dist.Ahmedabad for the offences u/s 406, 452, 467, 468, 114 of the Indian Penal Code, registered

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/14857/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/11/2023

undefined

on 05/01/2017;

(D) Pending hearing and final disposal of this application, police may be restrained from filing of the chargesheet qua the accused no.1 (present petitioner); (E) xxxx"

2. The brief facts leading to filing of this application

are such that the impugned complaint came to be filed

against the applicant and other accused by the respondent

no.2-complainant alleging that the first informant purchased

the Shop No.205 of Mahavir Complex admeasuring 174

sq.ft.situated at Kalupur Ward No.1, Survey No.4099-K

against the consideration of Rs.5 lacs from the real brother

of present petitioner, who is accused no.1 and she got the

possession of the shop on 26.4.2016. It is further alleged in

the complaint that the present petitioner is original accused

no.2 executed the General Power of Attorney in favour of

accused no.1 and on basis of that Power of Attorney, the

accused no.1 sold out the shop by executing agreement to

sale to the first informant. It is further alleged that on

17.9.2016, the complainant was called by the present

petitioner at the shop no.205 and he informed that he has

not executed any Power of Attorney in favour of the accused

no.1. It is further alleged that police has not taken any

action for the shop opened by the accused no.2 and thus,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/14857/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/11/2023

undefined

present petitioner encroached upon the so called purchaser. It

is this FIR which is prayed to be quashed by way of this

application.

3. Heard learned advocate for the applicant, learned

APP Mr.Dave respondent no.1-state. Though served, none

appears for respondent no.2 to object the prayers prayed for

in this application. Therefore, this application is decided

finally today.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi for the applicant

submitted that prima facie, no case is made out against the

present applicant who is shown as accused no.2 under the

provisions of u/s 406, 420, 452, 467, 468, 114 of the Indian

Penal Code; that from the plain reading of the FIR, for

reasons best known to the complainant, the present applicant

is roped into the complaint as an accused; that since the

applicant has purchased the shop in the year 2013 by way of

registered sale deed and paid the consideration by Account

Payee Cheque to the original owner, the offence could not be

registered for encroachment when the present applicant is in

possession since 2013 and only because he is residing in

Pune, Maharashtra and with a view to snatch away the

valuable property, such complaint is filed.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/14857/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/11/2023

undefined

5. He has further submitted that the FIR is filed in

the year 2017 and accused no.1 is absconding and his

whereabouts are not found by the investigating agency and

considering the fact that the applicant has not indulging in

any activity as well as in the FIR, the proceedings should be

quashed qua him.

6. He has further submitted that he has also given

his specimen signature of his handwriting to the investigating

agency but till this application is filed, no report from the

FSL is obtained and now by passage of time, the report is

received from the FSL by the investigating agency, which

clearly indicates that the applicant is not involved in the

alleged offence. Considering the same, he prays to quash the

impugned FIR qua the applicant as no ingredients of the

sections invoked are made out and no involvement of the

applicant can be found from the above stated facts.

7. He relied on the judgment in the case of State of

Haryana V/s Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, a nd prayed to allow this application.

8. Learned APP Mr.Dave for respondent no.1-state

has submitted that prima facie the applicant is made accused

in the FIR and from bare reading of the FIR, the allegation

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/14857/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/11/2023

undefined

against the applicant is to the extent that he has signed the

said document which is in dispute, but from the report of

the FSL which is received during the course of investigation,

the impugned document which is sent for the verification

with the admitted signature of the applicant, it transpires

that the applicant has not signed the document in question

and therefore prima facie, at present there is no material

against the present applicant, which can clearly establish his

involvement in the said offence and more particularly no

offence is made out under Sections 406 and 420 of the

Indian Penal Code. He, therefore, prays that considering the

material available on the record, appropriate order may be

passed qua the present applicant only as original accused

no.1 is absconding and is not available with the investigating

agency.

9. I have considered the rival submissions made at

the bar, also considered the provisions of the sections

invoked in the impugned FIR and also perused the contents

of the FIR. Essentially, the allegation against the present

applicant who is made accused no.2 is about said bogus

power of attorney whereby from the report received from the

FSL, it clearly transpires that from the admitted signature of

the applicant, it could not be established that the said

document is signed by the present applicant before the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/14857/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/11/2023

undefined

Notary.

10. Considering the material available on the record ,

that essentially the allegation is against accused no.1, that

the complainant is not present before this Court to contest

the prayers of the present application and considering the

totality of facts and circumstances of the present application,

and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Mahmood Ali and Others V/s State of U.P, and others, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 950, paragraphs 13 and 14 of which reads as under:

"13. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/14857/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/11/2023

undefined

would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/14857/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/11/2023

undefined

14. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522, a two-Judge Bench of this Court elaborated on the types of materials the High Court can assess to quash an FIR. The Court drew a fine distinction between consideration of materials that were tendered as evidence and appreciation of such evidence. Only such material that manifestly fails to prove the accusation in the FIR can be considered for quashing an FIR. The Court held:--

"5. ...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 such abuse. It would be an abuse of the 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 or 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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/14857/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/11/2023

undefined

6. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239, this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings : (AIR p. 869, para 6)

(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction;

(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;

(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.

7. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/14857/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/11/2023

undefined

That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt 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....."

(Emphasis supplied)

And in the case of Bhajanlal (supra), wherein it is held as

under:

"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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/14857/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/11/2023

undefined

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/14857/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/11/2023

undefined

without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under sec.156(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." ,

11. I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to

exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.

Accordingly, this application is allowed. The impugned FIR

being C.R.No.I-01/2017 Kalupur Police Station, Dist.Ahmedabad

as well as subsequent proceedings, if any, arising out of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/14857/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/11/2023

undefined

same FIR are hereby quashed and set aside qua the

applicant only. Direct service is permitted.

(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) SRILATHA