Nareshkumar Vashrambhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat
2025 Latest Caselaw 2858 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Nareshkumar Vashrambhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 10 February, 2025

                                                                                                                      NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/SCR.A/1972/2025                                           ORDER DATED: 10/02/2025

                                                                                                                       undefined




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                           R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 1972 of 2025

                      ==========================================================
                                           NARESHKUMAR VASHRAMBHAI PARMAR
                                                         Versus
                                                STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR PK SHUKLA(1056) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                      MR. CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                      ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

                                                             Date : 10/02/2025
                                                              ORAL ORDER

1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside

the order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the learned

Principal District & Sessions Judge, Palanpur in

Criminal Revision Application No.10 of 2024 as well as nd the order dated 19.11.2022 passed by the learned 2

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Palanpur at Banaskantha in

Criminal Case No.1159 of 2018.

2. Heard Mr. P.K. Shukla, learned advocate for the

petitioner and Mr. Chintan Dave, learned APP for the

respondent - State.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/1972/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2025

undefined

3. Mr. P.K. Shukla, learned advocate for the

petitioner has submitted that both the courts have not

properly considered the facts of the case and has

erroneously relied on the decision of the earlier matter,

which in some different criminal case and also taken

into consideration that civil suit is filed for recovery of

Rs.10 lakhs and, therefore, order of discharge, which is

passed by exercising powers under Section 245 of the

Criminal Procedure Code by Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, is confirmed by the Revisional Court also

and, therefore, he has submitted that both the courts

below have not found that prima facie, offence is made

out and there is sufficient material to proceed against

the accused person and no order of discharge can be passed and, therefore, he has prayed for interference of

this Court.

4. Mr. Chintan Dave, learned APP for the respondent

- State has submitted that both the courts below have

considered the materials available on the record and

essentially, the dispute is between the two private

parties but the both the courts have not committed any

error of law and, therefore, no interference is required to

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/1972/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2025

undefined

be called for by this court

5.1 I have considered the rival submissions made at the

bar. It transpires that both the courts below have

concurrently found that there is no case, which is

required to be proceeded considering the various events

available on the record by way of other proceedings,

whereby the accused Nos.1 and 3 are acquitted and

accused No.2 is convicted. It is also found on record that

civil suit for recovery of Rs.10 lakh is also filled, which

is arising from same transaction. The Court has also

rightly come to the conclusion that allegations under

Section 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code are so

vague and considering the various judgments of the Hon'bel Apex Court as well as this Court, no offence can

be made out and, therefore, the trial court has come to

the conclusion that order of discharge is required to be

passed and, accordingly, application for discharge is

granted against that revision application has been

preferred. The Revisional Court in Criminal Revision

Application No.10 of 2024 on 30.05.2024 while discussing

the relevant aspect has observed, more particularly,

relevant paragraphs read as follows:

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/1972/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2025

undefined

"... report of police were submitted before the learned Trial Court on 31.12.2017 and the same was exhibited at Ex. 4. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court took cognizance of the case, and issued process against the accused with a view to proceed ahead in the complaint, and in pursuance the accused appeared before the court. Thereafter, in support of the case and with a view to frame charge in the case, the complainant examined four witnesses at Exhs. 16, 26, 27 and 30 respectively and requested the court to frame charge against the accused under the alleged offence. On the other hand the accused had claimed discharge saying that cheque were given by the accused no. 2 Mukesbhai Maghabhai alone and he had faced trial and convicted for the same. Thus, there is no case against the accused Nos. 1 and 3. On perusal of the submissions made above and the perusing the contents of the criminal complaint, it is amply clear that the above dispute was a simple case of non-payment of credited loan and consequent dishonour of the cheques. This dispute was already resolved by the Criminal Court and decided in favour of the complainant by convicting the accused No. 2 Mükheshbhai in all three cases. The judgment of case Nos. 1782/2015, 1857/2015 and 1903/2015 sufficiently suggest that the complainant had brought the said complaints on the basis of same set of facts. Even more, the complainant had admitted in his cross- examination recorded at Exh. 16 that he had also filed a

Special Civil Suit No. 6/2018 before the Court for recovery

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/1972/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2025

undefined

of alleged ten Lacs. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the present complainant is again and again filing different cases against the same accused in order to recover his money which amounts to abuse of process of law. Therefore, the learned Trial Court came to conclusion that the allegation pertaining the non payment of the alleged money, was already dealt in the case filed earlier and therefore, no allegation under section 406 and 420 is made out. As far as the charges under section 504 and 506(2) of I.P.C. are concerned, I found the complaint to be very vague and ambiguous. There are no specific allegation against any accused. There is no clarity on the words being used at the time of abuse and threat. There is no clarity on the date and time of alleged act. There is no explanation of the delay of approximately one month which has been caused in filing of the complaint. The complainant himself admitted in his cross-examination that he is not aware about the date and time of the actual abuses and threat being caused to him. The witness had also corroborated the version of the complainant as far as the allegations regarding 504 and 506(2) of I.P.C. are concerned. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly came to conclusion that the complainant bad failed to bring on record the evidence which could enable the court frame charges under section 504 and 506(2) of I.P.C. as well. In view of above discussion, this Court is of the view

that the offence alleged against the accused is not made out from the deposition of the complainant and the witnesses. The same set of facts had already resulted into

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/1972/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2025

undefined

the conviction of the one of the accused in three criminal cases. Not only that but a Special Civil Suit for recovery is also pending before the Civil Court, Palanpur other than above said conviction. In such situation again framing the charges against the accused on similar set of facts is not proper. As such, no interference is at all required in the decision taken by the learned 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur below Exh.1 in Criminal Case No.1159/2018. As such, this court has answered the Issue No.1 in negative and for Issue No.2 following order is passed. ..."

5.2 Both the courts below have considered the material

available on the record and had not committed any error

in coming to the conclusion that no material is available

against the accused person and the charges are not

supported by any evidence and, therefore, accused is required to be discharged. Accordingly, the trial court

has discharged the accused and accordingly, Revisional

Court has also considered the pros and cons of the

matter in accordance with law and considered the

materials available on the record, and confirmed the

order of the trial court. In view of the above, since the

findings of both the courts below are concurrent on the

factual aspect then considering the totality of the facts

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/1972/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2025

undefined

and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that

no error has been committed by both the courts below

on the aspect of interpretation of law or applicability of

law and, therefore, no interference by this Court is

required to be called for by exercising powers under

Article to 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

6. In view of the above and in totality of the faces

and circumstances of the case, the present petition is

found merit-less end is required to be dismissed and is

dismissed accordingly

(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) DIWAKAR SHUKLA