Gujarat High Court
Dharmesh Sureshbhai Kotecha vs State Of Gujarat on 19 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1230/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 1230 of 2015
With
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1002 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DHARMESH SURESHBHAI KOTECHA & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA(1974) for the Petitioners in SCRA 1230/2015
MR PREMAL RACHH for the Petitioner in SCRA 1002/2015
MR PRATIK Y JASANI(5325) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR SOHAM JOSHI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 19/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani waives service of
rule for respondent No.2 and learned APP waives service of
notice of rule for the respondent State.
1.1 Since both the petitions arise from self-same FIR, with the
consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the
petitions are decided analogously.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1230/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
2. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"),
the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR
being C.R.No.I - 4 of 2015 registered with Rajkot City DCB Police
Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 387, 504,
506(2), 114 of the IPC as well as all other consequential
proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner
herein.
3. Brief facts of the case as observed from the pleadings are
as under:-
3.1 It is submitted that a complaint came to be filed by
respondent No.2 on 13.2.2015 inter alia alleging that before four
years he and his partners launched a residential plot scheme in
the survey of 'Abhagi Pipaliya' named as "Zenting Safari" wherein
the petitioners purchased the plots at the rate of Rs.1,170/- and
as per the understanding whenever the amount is paid the
documents were to be executed and about 8,000 to 10,000 sq.
yards documents were executed. Thereafter also 24 lakhs of
rupees were remained with the complainant and after getting
further 28 lakhs of rupees from the accused, he has to execute
the documents. It is further alleged that, however, both the
accused were asking for the money from the complainant and
used to come to the office of complainant but the complainant
said that pay remaining amount of Rs.28 lakhs and he will
execute the sale deed. However both of the petitioners were
pressurizing the complainant to make the payment of Rs.24
lakhs and were threatening with dire consequences. It is further
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1230/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
alleged that on 12.2.2015 the complainant received a phone call
on his mobile at 11.30 night and in that phone call one Kamlesh
Ramani issued threat to the complainant that to make payment
of amount to the petitioners and if payment is not made, then he
will be beaten. The said person abused on telephone. The
complainant, therefore, on 13.2.2015 in the morning was going
to make representation to the Police Commissioner Office and at
that time, the accused No.3 namely Kamlesh Ramani met him
and abused the complainant and threatened to pay the amount;
otherwise his persons will break his legs. Due to the fear the
complainant went back to his home. Thereafter, the complainant
gave his complaint to DCB police station which came to be
registered as CR No.I-4 of 2015 before DCB Police Station,
Rajkot for the offences punishable under Sections 387, 506 (2),
504 and 114 of Indian Penal Code.
CONTENTION OF LEARNED ADVOCATE MR. PRAVIN
GONDALIYA
4. Learned advocate Mr. Gondaliya for the petitioners in
Special Criminal Application No.1230 of 2015 taking this Court
to the FIR on record, would submit that it is the FIR filed due to
business rivalry. He would further submit that civil litigation
has been given colour of criminal offence. He would further
submit that according to the FIR, original accused Nos.1 and 2
have given Rs.24 lakh to the complainant for purchase of certain
parcels of lands from the project namely "Zenting Safari"at in the
survey of 'Abhagi Pipaliya'. He would further submit that four
sale deeds were executed and thereafter, according to the
complainant, the petitioners were pressurizing the complainant
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1230/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
to make the payment of Rs.24 lakhs and were threatening with
dire consequences. He would further submit that looking to the
facts of the FIR, essential ingredients of offences u/s 387 of the
IPC, which is meant for extortion for putting fear or grievous
hurt or death is not made out. He would further submit that
even essential ingredients of offence u/s 504, 506(2) of the IPC
are also not made out. He would further submit that what could
be noticed that the issue involved between the parties are in the
nature of settlement of accounts and nothing more, however, the
first informant has filed the impugned FIR, which is nothing but
pressuring tactics and as such, is abuse of process of law and
therefore, in that circumstances, he prays to allow Special
Criminal Application No.1230 of 2015 by quashing and setting
aside impugned FIR.
CONTENTION OF LEARNED ADVOCATE MR. PREMAL RACHH
5. As far as role of the petitioner of Special Criminal
Application No.1002 of 2015 is concerned, learned advocate Mr.
Rachh would submit that the role of the petitioner is limited to
criminal intimidation. He would further submit that at the
relevant time, the petitioner was under the police protection as
he was facing threat in some other offences and therefore, it is
highly unbelievable that a person under the police protection
would pass threat for dire consequences to the first informant.
He has pressed into service the judgment of Coordinate Bench of
this Court in case of Ronak Kedia Vs. State of Gujarat rendered
in Criminal Misc. Application No.4145 of 2012 and judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Abhishek Saxena Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh reported in 2023(16) SCR 1126. Upon such
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1230/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
submission, he prays allow Special Criminal Application
No.1002 of 2015 by quashing and setting aside impugned FIR.
CONTENTION OF LEARNED ADVOCATE MR. PRATIK JASANI
6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani for the
complainant referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in 2021(19) SCC 401 would submit that it
is not a case where Court should exercise extraordinary inherent
power to quash and set aside the FIR at the threshold. He would
further submit that power of quashing should be exercised
sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed in
Neeharika Infrastructure (supra), in the rarest of rare cases. He
would further submit that the Court while exercising jurisdiction
to quash the FIR, cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness or otherwise of allegations made in the
FIR and cannot hold mini trial to scuttle the criminal
proceedings at the initial or nascent stage. He would further
submit that quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an
exception rather than an ordinary rule. He would further submit
that it is incorrect to say that the petitioners have paid the
amount towards purchase of the land in question. It is only
Rs.28 lakh as stated to be paid and the petitioners were
pressurizing the complainant to make the payment of Rs.24
lakhs by catching the collar of the comm and passed threat of
dire consequence and therefore, essential ingredients of the
offences alleged in the FIR are made out.
7. As far as role of the petitioner of Special Criminal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1230/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
Application No.1002 of 2015 is concerned, learned advocate Mr.
Jasani would submit that multiple FIRs are filed against the
discredit of petitioner and therefore, the argument, which is
preempting of the trial that the accused has not made out any
offence, should not be accepted. Upon such submission, he
prays to dismiss both the petitions.
CONTENTION OF LEARNED APP MR. SOHAM JOSHI
8. Learned APP adopting the arguments of learned advocate
Mr. Jasani, would further add that in the investigation of the
offence, the call details of the petitioner Kamlesh Ramani has
been obtained, which indicates that he has called the first
informant multiple times, which prima facie demonstrates that
he has passed the threat for dire consequences. Upon such
submission, he prays to dismiss both the petitions.
9. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and perused the FIR and other documents
annexed with the petitions.
ANALYSIS
10. To understand the exact allegations levelled against the
petitioners, let refer contents of the FIR, which reads as under:-
"About four years before, I and my partners had
undertaken a project in name of Jenting Safary at
Pipaliya. Out of the land under the stated project,
Dharmeshbhai Kotecha and Chetanbhai Bhatt,
residents of Rajkot, had purchased the land measuring
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1230/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
14,906 square yards at the rate of Rs. 1170/- from me
and it was agreed between us that I would execute
relevant sale-deeds as and when they remit money
towards consideration. Accordingly, I had executed
sale-deeds for the lands measuring about eight to nine
thousand square yard in favor of these two persons.
Further, I had already received Rupees twenty four
lakhs from them and the remaining amount was
Rupees twenty eight lakhs, on receipt of which I was
bound to execute respective sale-deeds.
However, a number of times, Dharmesh Kotecha and
Chetan Bhatt had come to my office situated at Jasal
Complex, Opposite Sterling Hospital where they said,
"you better returned our Rupees twenty four lakhs, else
it will not be good for you." On such instances, I used to
tell them that, "you pay me Rupees twenty eight lakhs
so that I can get the sale deeds executed in your favor."
Despite that, the duo used to pressurize me to pay
them Rupees twenty four lakhs and they used to
threaten me for life. On 12/02/2015, when I was at my
house, I received a call from mobile number
9725510139 on my mobile no. 9824043826 and the
person on the other end said, "I am Kamlesh Ramani.
Are you going to return money to my friends Chetan
Bhatt and Dharmesh Kotecha or not. If you do not do
so, I will break your legs. If you do not return money,
you will lose your life." Thereafter, he began to speak
abusive words. As my wife was with me at the house, I
disconnected the phone and then, today on
13/02/2015, when I was going to the Office of
Commissioner of Police in the morning for making a
representation in this regard, this Kamlesh Ramani met
me at Jilla Panchayat Chowk and spoke abusive words
to me. He said, "you better give money, else I will send
my men who will break your legas." As I got frightened,
I returned home and thereafter, now, I have come to
D.C.B. Police Station to dictate a complaint."
11. To test that whether essential ingredients of the offences
alleged against the petitioners are coming from the FIR, let refer
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1230/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
the definition of extortion as defined in section 383 of the IPC,
which reads as under:-
"Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any
injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby
dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver
to any person any property, or valuable security or
anything signed or sealed which may be converted into
a valuable security, commits "extortion".
12. When the offence of section 387 of the IPC is alleged
against the accused in the FIR, prima facie, it is to be proved
that the accused have intentionally put the first informant in
fear of death or of grievous hurt and thereby, dishonestly
inducing the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any
property or valuable security. In case of Abhishek Saxena
(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court referring to section 384 of the
IPC found that following ingredients are necessary to satisfy the
offence u/s 384 of the IPC.
"10. As relates the alleged commission of offence under
Section 384, IPC there can be no doubt that to attract the
said offence the following twin ingredients are to be
satisfied:
(i) Intentionally putting a person in fear of injury to
himself or another;
(ii) Dishonestly inducing the person so put to deliver to
any person any property or valuable security.
In the absence of such ingredients/accusations in the
chargesheet to constitute the said offence it cannot be
said a prima facie case of commission of offence under
Section 384 is made out therein."
13. In the present case, from plain reading of the FIR, what
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1230/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
could be noticeable that essential ingredients of extortion are
missing. The only allegation levelled in the FIR is that the first
informant has been told to return back Rs.24 lakh. It was also
alleged that threat was passed to get back Rs.24 lakh already
paid. Apt to note extortion and seeking return of money paid are
different aspect. Extortion is made out if a person is
intentionally put in fear of injury or death to deliver any property
or valuable security. In case on hand, even as per case of the
first informant, by passing threat, accused asked for returning of
money from the complainant. By no stretch of imagination, it
cannot be said to be extortion.
14. Another offence allegations of which are levelled are
offences u/s 504 and 506(2) of the IPC. Firstly, let refer section
503 of the IPC defining criminal intimidation.
"503. Criminal intimidation.--Whoever threatens
another with any injury to his person, reputation
or property, or to the person or reputation of any
one in whom that person is interested, with intent
to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that
person to do any act which he is not legally bound
to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is
legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the
execution of such threat, commits criminal
intimidation. Explanation.--A threat to injure the
reputation of any deceased person in whom the
person threatened is interested, is within this
section.
14.1 Sections 504 and 506(2) of the IPC are referred to as
under:-
"504. Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1230/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be
likely that such provocation will cause him to break the
public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with
both.
506(2). 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 1 [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."
15. When could be and in what circumstances, abusive
language takes form and safe of intentional insult is discussed
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Mohammad Wajid And
Another Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others, 2023 (0)
AIR(SC) 3784 in para 28 and 29, which reads as under:-
"28. Section 504 of the IPC contemplates intentionally
insulting a person and thereby provoking such person
insulted to breach the peace or intentionally insulting a
person knowing it to be likely that the person insulted
may be provoked so as to cause a breach of the public
peace or to commit any other offence. Mere abuse may
not come within the purview of the section. But, the
words of abuse in a particular case might amount to an
intentional insult provoking the person insulted to
commit a breach of the public peace or to commit any
other offence. If abusive language is used intentionally
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1230/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
and is of such a nature as would in the ordinary course
of events lead the person insulted to break the peace or
to commit an offence under the law, the case is not
taken away from the purview of the Section merely
because the insulted person did not actually break the
peace or commit any offence having exercised
selfcontrol or having been subjected to abject terror by
the offender. In judging whether particular abusive
language is attracted by Section 504, IPC, the court has
to find out what, in the ordinary circumstances, would
be the effect of the abusive language used and not what
the complainant actually did as a result of his peculiar
idiosyncrasy or cool temperament or sense of discipline.
It is the ordinary general nature of the abusive
language that is the test for considering whether the
abusive language is an intentional insult likely to
provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the
peace and not the particular conduct or temperament
of the complainant.
29. Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence,
may not amount to an intentional insult within the
meaning of Section 504, IPC if it does not have the
necessary element of being likely to incite the person
insulted to commit a breach of the peace of an offence
and the other element of the accused intending to
provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the
peace or knowing that the person insulted is likely to
commit a breach of the peace. Each case of abusive
language shall have to be decided in the light of the
facts and circumstances of that case and there cannot
be a general proposition that no one commits an offence
under Section 504, IPC if he merely uses abusive
language against the complainant. In King Emperor v.
Chunnibhai Dayabhai, (1902) 4 Bom LR 78 , a Division
Bench of the Bombay High Court pointed out that:-
"To constitute an offence under Section 504, I.P.C.
it is sufficient if the insult is of a kind calculated
to cause the other party to lose his temper and
say or do something violent. Public peace can be
broken by angry words as well as deeds. "
(Emphasis supplied)"
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1230/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
16. Yet in another judgment, in case of B.V.Ram Kumar
Versus State Of Telangana, 2025 JX(SC) 199, the Hon'ble Apex
Court discussed the offence related to section 504 of the IPC,
which reads as under:-
"23. Section 504, IPC consists of two parts. Firstly, the
actus reus- being the intentional insult which gives rise
to the provocation. Secondly, the mens rea, i.e., the
intention or knowledge on the part of the accused that
such intentional provocation is likely to cause the
person insulted to break public peace or commit any
other offence. The animus nocendi in Section 504, IPC
is that the accused should intentionally insult the other
person with the intention or knowledge that the
provocation caused by such insult is likely to result in
the commission of breach of public peace or any other
offence by the person who has been so insulted. The
offence is said to be complete once the accused person
makes intentional insult with the aforesaid mens rea.
Hence, intention or knowledge on the part of accused
person that his actions of making intentional insult
have the potential to provoke the person insulted is sine
qua non for the commission of the offence under
Section 504, IPC."
17. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Ronak Kedia
(supra) relating to section 506, reads as under:-
"A bare perusal of Section 506 IPC makes it clear that a
part of it relates to eriminal intimidation. Before an
offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be
established that an accused had an intention to cause
alarm to the complainant. Mere threats given by the
accused not with an intention to cause alarm to the
complainant, but with a view to deterring him from
interfering with the work of construction of the wall,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1230/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
which was undertaken by the accused-applicant, would
not constitute an offence of criminal intimidation. In
the entire FIR, there is no whisper of any allegation that
the threats which were administered actually caused
any alarm to the first informant and he felt actually
threatened."
18. It is trite to note that bare reading of the FIR neither
indicates any essential ingredients of extortion as defined in
section 383 of the IPC nor it establishes intentional insulting a
person and thereby, provoking such person insulted to breach
the peace or intentionally insulting a person knowing it to be
likely that the person insulted may be provoked so as to cause a
breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence or it
establishes criminal intimidation that accused had an intention
to cause alarm to the complainant, rather entire FIR turns to be
criminal proceedings for a civil dispute of non-paying of the
remaining amount.
19. In the case of Vesa Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. State
of Kerala and others - (2015) 8 SCC 293], Hon'ble Apex Court
made the following observation:-
"13. It is true that a given set of facts may make
out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and
only because a civil remedy may be available to the
complainant that itself cannot be ground to quash
a criminal proceeding. The real test is whether the
allegations in the complaint disclose the criminal
offence of cheating or not. In the present case,
there is nothing to show that at the very inception
there was any inception on behalf of an accused
person to cheat which is a condition precedent for
an offence u/s 420 IPC. In our view, the complaint
does not disclose any criminal offence at all.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1230/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
Criminal proceedings should not be encouraged
when it is found to be mala fide or otherwise an
abuse of the process of the courts. Superior courts
while exercising this power should also strive to
serve the ends of justice. In our opinion, in view of
these facts allowing the police investigation to
continue would amount to an abuse of the process
of the court and the High Court committed an error
in refusing to exercise the power under Section
482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings."
20. In the case of Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd.
and others - (2006) 6 SCC 736, a two-judge Bench of Hon'ble
Apex Court reviewed the precedents on the exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
1973 and formulated guiding principles in the following terms:
"12. ... (i) A complaint can be quashed where the
allegations made in 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 the case alleged against the accused.
For this purpose, the complaint has to be
examined as a whole, but without examining the
merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry
nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an
assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the
allegations in the complaint, is warranted while
examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a
clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the
criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated
with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or
to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd
and inherently improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used
to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The
power should be used sparingly and with abundant
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1230/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
caution.
(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim
reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence
alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid
in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few
ingredients have not been stated in detail, the
proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of
the complaint is warranted only where the
complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which
are absolutely necessary for making out the
offence.
(v) .."
21. The permissibility of quashing of criminal proceeding has
been discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Anand
Kumar Mohatta Versus State (Govt.Of Nct Of Delhi) Department
Of Home, 2019 (11) SCC 706, held as under:-
"14. First, we would like to deal with the submission of
the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2
that once the charge sheet is filed, petition for quashing
of FIR is untenable. We do not see any merit in this
submission, keeping in mind the position of this Court
in Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, 2011 7 SCC
59. In the case of Joseph Salvaraj
A. (supra), this Court while deciding the question
whether the High Court could entertain the 482
petition for quashing of FIR, when the charge
sheet was filed by the police during the pendency
of the 482 petition, observed: -
"16. Thus, from the general conspectus of the
various sections under which the appellant is
being charged and is to be prosecuted would show
that the same are not made out even prima facie
from the complainant's FIR. Even if the charge-
sheet had been filed, the learned Single Judge
could have still examined whether the offences
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1230/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
alleged to have been committed by the appellant
were prima facie made out from the complainant's
FIR, charge sheet, documents, etc. or not."
15. Even otherwise it must be remembered that the
provision invoked by the accused before the High Court
is Section 482 Cr. P.C and that this Court is hearing an
appeal from an order under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Section 482 of Cr.P.C reads as follows: -
"482. Saving of inherent power of the High Court.-
Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or
affect the inherent powers of the High Court to
make such orders as may be necessary to give
effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent
abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice."
16. There is nothing in the words of this Section which
restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to
prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of
justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle
of law that the High court can exercise jurisdiction
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C even when the discharge
application is pending with the trial court, G. Sagar
Suri and Anr. V. State of U.P and Others, (2000) 2 SCC
636 (Para 7). Umesh Kumar V. State of Andhra Pradesh
and Anr. (2013) 10 SCC 591 (Para 20). Indeed, it would
be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against
a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but
not if it has advanced, and the allegations have
materialized into a charge sheet. On the contrary it
could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR
stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a
charge sheet after investigation. The power is
undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of
power of any court."
22. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal & ors., AIR
1992 SC 604, the Hon'ble Apex Court summed up the
proposition of law, which reads as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1230/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
"(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 ins the F.I.R. and other
materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under S.156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of
S.155(2) of the code.
(3) Where, the uncontroverted allegations made in the
F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support
of the same donot disclose the commission of any
offence and make out the case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. 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 S.155(2) of the Code.
(5) Whether, the allegations made in the F.I.R. 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 bare engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) toi the
institution 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 malafide 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."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1230/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
22.1 The findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 1,3,5 and 7
are attracted in the present case. In view of above, present
petition deserves consideration.
23. Considering the discussions made herein above, the
judgment relied upon by the learned advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani
in case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) would not
render any assistance to the first informant.
CONCLUSION:-
24. Resultantly, this petitions are allowed. The impugned FIR
being C.R.No.I - 4 of 2015 registered with Rajkot City DCB Police
Station against the present petitioners is hereby quashed and set
aside. Consequently, all other proceedings arising out of the
aforesaid FIR against the present petitioners are also quashed
and set aside. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute. Direct service
is permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
