Gujarat High Court
Dharmeshbhai Muljibhai Ranpariya ... vs State Of Gujarat on 5 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2417/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 2417 of 2025
==========================================================
DHARMESHBHAI MULJIBHAI RANPARIYA (PATEL)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
PRASHANTKUMAR R SHARMA(8591) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 05/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
The present petition is filed for quashing and
setting aside the FIR bearing C.R.No.I-11202008250130 of
2025 registered with City `A' Div.Police Station, Jamnagar for
the offences punishable under Sections 4(3), 5(c) of Gujarat
Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 and under Sections
506 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Sharma for the
applicant and learned APP Mr.Dave for the respondent-state.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Sharma for the applicant has
submitted that the complainant who has filed the complaint
before the authority has no locus to file such complaint as
the complainant has already sold the property situated in the
said society; that the provisions under the Land Grabbing Act
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2417/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2025
undefined
and Indian Penal Code are invoked in the present
proceedings whereby the petitioner is shown as encroacher of
the common plot. In fact, the petitioner is not having any
possession of the land of the common plat. He has further
submitted that on bare reading of the FIR, it is strange that
the petitioner is also named as brother of a criminal who is
having criminal history Mr.Jayesh Patel though normally, the
person is not described in such manner in the FIR. He
further submitted that considering Rule 5(4) of the Land
Grabbing Rules, necessary inquiry is required to be carried
out to consider the locus of the complainant to file such
complaint. He submitted that considering the fact that the
FIR does not disclose any believable offences and continuation
of proceedings will amount to abuse of process of law and
therefore this petition is required to be considered.
4. Learned APP Mr.Dave has opposed the same by
submitting the report received from the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Jamnagar, whereby it is stated
that this is not only the FIR registered against the present
petitioner and there are more than five other FIRs registered
against the present petitioner. The petitioner is having
criminal history. He has further submitted that on bare
reading of the FIR, the offence is made out and recently FIR
is registered on 23.1.2025 and without availing remedy
available under the law by approaching the competent court
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2417/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2025
undefined
for seeking bail, the petitioner has preferred this petition and
that too when the investigation is at very nascent stage. He
has also pointed out from the papers of investigation by
pointing out a google photo and earmarked portion in that
photo whereby it is mentioned that the petitioner is having
property in question and adjacent to that bunglow, there is a
common plot of the society whereby the petitioner has put a
shed as well as room and also put separate gate as if the
said common plot is part of his bunglow. This aspect is
required to prima facie constitute the offence under the Land
Grabbing Act. The investigation is at an initial stage and
considering the antecedents of the petitioner who is having
criminal history, no discretion is required to be exercised.
Even otherwise also, the powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is required to be exercised
sparingly and not as a substitute for seeking bail from the
competent court. Therefore, he submitted that the present
petitioner is required to be dismissed.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made at
the bar and also considered the provisions of sections invoked
in the present proceedings which are reproduced herein.
Sections 4(3) and 5(c) of the Land Grabbing Act
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2417/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2025
undefined
reads as under:
"4(3) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1)
or sub-section (2) shall on conviction, be punished with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten
years but which may extend to fourteen years and with fine
which may extend to Jantri value of such properties.
5(c) uses any land grabbed or causes or permits knowingly
to be used for purposes, connected with sale or allotment."
506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.--Whoever commits
the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be
to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.--and if the threat be
to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction
of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable
with death or 8 [imprisonment for life], or with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years,
or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
6. There is prima facie material available by way of
google map where it clearly transpires that there is some
encroachment in the common plot by way of shed and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2417/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2025
undefined
construction of the petitioner who is having adjacent bunglow
to the common plot. This factum coupled with the other
material available on the record indicate that prima facie the
offence mentioned in the FIR is made out against the
petitioner which requires further investigation. It is also
required to be noted that the FIR is registered on 23.1.2025
and within five days, the present petitioner has filed this
petition without availing appropriate remedy under the law.
This Court is not inclined to exercise powers in such gross
case in favour of the present petitioner which is otherwise
required to be exercised very sparingly.
7. Considering the facts of the present case, neither
it can be said that there is no prima facie made out against
the present petitioner nor it can be said that continuation of
proceedings will amount to abuse of process of law. The
conduct of the petitioner also speaks by itself. Therefore, no
case is made out for entertaining the matter as this petition
is found meritless. In view of the same and considering the
judgment in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. V/s
State of Maharashtra reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315,
this petition is required to be dismissed and accordingly
dismissed.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
SRILATHA
