Gujarat High Court
Pinakbhai Riddhihbhai Desai vs State Of Gujarat on 21 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17118/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 07/07/2025
Pronounced On : 21/07/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 17118 of 2013
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 18011 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
PINAKBHAI RIDDHIHBHAI DESAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KRUNAL SHAH for MR BA SURTI for the petitioner in CrMA 17118 of
2013
MR SK PATEL, ADVOCATE for the petitioners in CrMA 18011 of 2013
MR CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Since common questions of law and fact arise in these
batch of petitions, with the consent of learned advocates for
the respective parties, they are being disposed of by this
common order.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17118/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
2. By way of this petitions under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Code"), the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting
impugned FIR being I - C.R. No.27 of 2013 registered with
DCB Police Station, Surat for the offences punishable u/s 406,
420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC as well as all other
consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua
the petitioners herein.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
3.1 That on 12/08/2011, the applicant Mr. Poonambhai
Bhanjibhai Patel (Ukani), resi. 62, Shreeji Park Society,
Lasmikant Ashram Road, Katar Gaam, Surat made an
application with Umra Police Station for investigation against
the respondents namely (1) Manish Somabhai Bariya, Resi.
Galemandi, Main road, Mahidharpura Road, Surat (2) Tarun
Kantilal Raval, Resi. 4/B, Ratnashyam apartment, Ghod Dod
Road, Surat (3) Suresh Kantilal Raval (4) Pinak Riddhishbhai
Desai, resi. Nanpura, Surat etc. wherein he has stated that
out of the plots in old revenue survey number 584, new survey
number 381 of Mauje village - Vesu, plot no 25 and 30 are
owned by the applicant and the applicant has neither sold the
plots to anyone nor has he assigned the power of attorney
thereof to anyone for its management.
3.2 Despite that, the respondents hatched a conspiracy to
grab the plot of the applicant. Around March 2008, Manish
Somabhai Bariya posed as false power of attorney holder of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17118/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
the applicant and in the capacity of power of attorney, he
executed a false sale deed of both the plots in the name of
Tarun Kantilal Raval, wherein, Suresh Kantilal Raval, Pinak
Ridhhesh Desai, etc had put their signatures as witnesses in
it. This sale deed was registered and in this way they
committed the criminal act of grabbing the plot.
3.3 An investigation was ongoing in relation to the
application containing the said facts in the Umra police
Station, during that time, Kanubhai Chandulal Shah, resi. 58,
Adarsh society, Athwa lines, Surat made a counter
application against the application of aforementioned facts
stated by Poonambhai Bhanjibhai Patel and stated that
although Poonambhai Bhanjibhai Patel, owner of Plot Nos. 25
and 30 in the land bearing old Revenue Survey No. 594, new
Survey No. 381 of Mauje Vesu, had executed a legitimate sale
deed through his power of attorney, namely Manish Somabhai
Baria, in favor of Tarunbhai Kantilal Raval, Poonambhai
Bhanjibhai and his brother Kantibhai Bhanjibhai, in the year
2024, fraudulently presented Mohanbhai Jadavbhai Patel as a
false power of attorney holder of the original landowners.
3.4 Poonambhai Bhanjibhai became the owner of Plot Nos.
25 and 30 through a false sale deed executed by this false
power of attorney holder - Mohanbhai Jadavbhai Patel, and he
had executed a document in favor of Tarun Kantilal Raval
through his power of attorney - Manish Somabhai Baria, and
upon apprehension that their fraud would be exposed from it,
they filed a false application with the intention of escaping
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17118/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
that fraud, though Umra police is conducting investigation in
an ex parte manner. An application along with evidence
papers was submitted to the office of Police Commissioner as
per the above allegation against the application of
aforementioned Poonambhai Bhanjibhai Patel.
3.5 Based on that submission, the application filed by the
applicant Kanubhai Chandubhai Shah regarding the dispute
over the ownership of plot no. 25 and 30 in the land of old
revenue survey number 584 and new survey number 381/3 of
Vesu village, as well as the application filed by the applicant
Poonambhai Bhanjibhai Patel, which is under investigation at
Umra Police Station, were handed over to the DCB Police
Station on 13/02/2012 by the office of Additional Police
Commissioner, Traffic and Crime with an order to conduct a
factual and judicial investigation in this matter.
3.6 Upon investigation, it has been found that the said land
was originally purchased by (1) Chhotubhai Dayalbhai Patel
(2) Jayantibhai Balubhai Ahir (3) Nathubhai Keshavbhai Patel
(4) Ishwarbhai Keshavbhai Patel, all residents of Umra, Surat
city, in 1977 and thereafter, they developed plotting in this
land for residential purposes and created a total of 30 plots in
the land. All these plots were sold to different holders in 1970.
3.7 Thereafter, around the year 2001, the accused (1)
Kantibhai Bhanjibhai Ukani, (2) Rameshbhai Bhanjibhai
Ukani, (3) Pravinbhai Bhanjibhai Ukani, (4) Lalubhai
Parshottambhai Patel, and (5) Naresh Bhimabhai Ichhuda, all
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17118/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
residents of Surat, collectively decided to purchase and sell all
30 plots in the said land and contacted the respective land
holders. By the year 2002, except for 8 plots bearing plot nos.
06, 07, 13, 14, 17 and plot nos. 8, 24, 28, they bought a total
of 22 plots out of the 30 plots in this land. However, out of the
22 purchased plots, the plot holders of a total of 7 plots -
bearing plot numbers 9, 11, 25, 26, 27, 29, and 30 - had not
obtained the sale deeds from the original landowners - the
four aforementioned partners at the relevant time, and
despite the sale deeds being still pending, the accused
acquired all 22 plots from the respective plot holders through
agreements to sell (satakhat) and power of attorney.
3.8 In 2002, they struck a deal to sell all these plots to
Kanubhai Chandulal Shah, resi. 58, Adarsh Society, Athwa
Lines, Surat. The accused then began executing deeds for the
plots to the representatives of Kanubhai Chandulal Shah,
either through the original plot holders or by acting as power
of attorney of the plot holder. The plot holders of the
aforementioned 7 plots out of the 22 plots, had not obtained
sale deeds from the original landowners at the relevant time.
3.9 Therefore, out of those seven plots the accused first, in
2003, had a person namely, Bhikhabhai Nagjibhai Rabari pose
as the power of attorney holder for plot number 9 and they
executed a deed in the name of Mafabhai Kursibhai through
him. Also, despite not having purchased plot number 17, the
accused encroached upon it and created a forged sale deed in
the name of Kantaben Mafabhai and thereafter, they executed
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17118/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
the sale deeds for both these plots in the name of
representatives of Kanubhai Shah. Wherein, the original plot
holder of plot no. 17 has filed a seperate complaint at Umra
Police Station in the year 2006.
3.10 Also, regarding the 6 plots for which the sale deeds were
still pending, without the knowledge of their respective plot
holders, even though original landowners Chhotubhai
Dayalbhai Patel and Ishwarbhai Keshbhai Patel from among
the four aforementioned partners had passed away in the year
2001 and 2003 respectively, in 2004, a person named
Mohanbhai Jadavbhai Patel, resi. Mahidharpura, Kaji Ni Vadi,
Surat, was presented as a fraudulent power of attorney for the
four original landowner partners. It was found that this
Mohanbhai Jadavbhai Patel was not residing at the
aforementioned address in Mahidharpura either currently or
in 2004. Out of the remaining 6 plots, a bogus sale deed was
executed for plot numbers 25 and 30 in the name of
Poonambhai Bhanjibhai Ukani through this Mohanbhai
Jadavbhai Patel, making him the purported owner.
Furthermore, bogus sale deeds were executed for the
remaining plot nos. 11, 26, 27, and 29 in the names of their
respective plot holders, making them the purported owners.
Thereafter, It is found that sale deeds for these four plots
were then executed in the name of Kanubhai Chandulal Shah.
3.11 Further, despite the total 8 plots of the above mentioned
plots of this land bearing plot no: 6,7,13,14,17 and 8,24,28
were not purchased by the accused persons, the plot no. 17
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17118/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
was sold to Kanubhai Shah in 2003 by forging the sale deed of
the plot.
3.12 Thereafter, regarding another three plots bearing plot
no: 8,24,28 were also sold as the plot holder namely Suresh
Balshankar Trivedi, Dhansukh Chunilal Jinvala had also got
the sale deed executed by forging documents of four partners,
who were the original land owners, the accused persons,
without the knowledge of said three plot holders/their heirs,
with the help of aforesaid bogus deed prepared through false
power of attorney holder Mr. Mohanbhai Jadavbhai Patel,
executed in 2004, and by making him owner through forged
documents, illegally grabbed and sold these three plots
approximately valuating to Rs. 5 crore again to Mr. Kanubhai
Chandulal Shah, and the said five accused persons, as well as
the accused Mr. Poonambhai Manjibhai Patel, who forged
documents of Plot no. 23 and 30, in collusion with another
submitted the said forged documents of total 11 plots as true
documents before the Revenue Authorities by doing forged
signatures of the respective plot holders/heirs.
3.13 The aforesaid accused persons forged the documents of
11 plots in this land, and the accused Poonambhai Manjibhai
became owner of two plots, whereas regarding remaining 9
plots, the sale deed were executed in the favour of persons of
Kanubhai Chandulal Shah's concern. In March 2008, in
collusion with another accused persons namely (1) Kanubhai
Chandubhai Shah, residing at: 58, Aadesh Society, Athva
lines, Surat in collusion with his accomplice-accused (2)
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17118/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
Manish Somabhai Bariya, residing at: B/3/5 Budarpura
Chhapanchal, Surat (3) Tarun Kantilal Raval, residing at: 4/B,
RatnaShyam Apartment, near Panjrapole, Ghoddod road,
Surat (4) Suresh Kantilal Raval, residing at: A/6 Rajdeep
Chambers, Nanpura, Surat and (5) Pinank Radhehhbhai
Desai, residing at: A/9 Vighneshwar Estate, Timliyavad,
Nanpura, Surat, etc., hatched a conspiracy to make the two
plots no. 25 and 31 in their name which were grabbed by Mr.
Poonambhai Manjibhai Ukani in 2004 by forging power of
attorney documents of the owner Mohan Jadavbhai Patel and
by showing the accused Manish Somabhai Bariya, as forged
Power of Attorney holder, made forged documents of these
two plots in the favour of Tarun Kantilal Raval, registering the
same and accordingly, used the forged documents/deeds as
true ones, which emerged during preliminary examination of
witnesses, and it was known that the parties in this case have
committed a criminal offence as mentioned above, which has
been declared as a criminal offence registered against the
accused in this case and with the permission of the competent
authority, complaint has been lodged by the state. Thus, the
FIR is lodged against the accused persons.
3.14 Hence, present petition for quashment of the FIR.
4. In essence, the central controversy is in regard to plot
Nos. 25 and 30. Petitioner Poonambhai filed various
applications before the Umra Police Station alleging that the
accused by forging power of attorney take hold of his plot
Nos.25 and 30 by executing false power of attorney and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17118/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
registered seed. During the investigation of the application
filed by the petitioner Poonambhai, the counter application
was filed by Kanubhai Shah, one of the accused, stating that
Poonambhai petitioner and others have also forged power of
attorney in name of Mohanbhai Jadav Patel and got executed
registered sale deed and have taken away plot Nos.25 and 30
from its original owners and as such they have committed
serious scam of decanting parcels of lands. Subsequent to the
application and counter application, the matter reached to the
DCB Police Station, Surat and it was inquired by the
concerned investigating officer and subsequent to the inquiry,
the PI, DCB Police Station, Surat found substance in both the
applications and it comes on record of the investigating officer
that petitioner Poonambhai as well as other accused have
committed fraud and taken away immovable property of poor
agriculturist by forging power of attorney and executing sale
deed by using bogus power of attorney and therefore,
questioned FIR filed at the instance of PI, DCB Police Station.
5. According to the case of Mr. Pinak Desai - petitioner of
Criminal Misc. Application No.17118 of 2013, he has done
nothing in the offence of forging various documents, except
becoming witness in the power of attorney, through which
sale deed in 2008 was executed.
6. Heard learned advocate Mr. SK Patel and learned
advocate Mr. Kunal Shah appearing for the respective
petitioner and learned APP Mr. Chintan Dave appearing for
the respondent State.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17118/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
7. Though served, none remained present for the private
respondent.
8. Learned advocate Mr. SK Patel placed on the record
short synopsis and would mainly argue as under:-
8.1 That FIR is filed after 43 years in 2013 for the offence
alleged in respect of power of attorney of the year 1970.
8.2 That FIR is filed against the petitioner at the instance of
Kanubhai Shah accused no.7, who is the real culprit against
whom the petitioners gave complaints of forgery.
8.3 That the DCB Police at the instance of accused No.7 has
created story of bogus power of attorney of 1970 of original
landowners only to implicate the petitioners, which is nothing
but gross abuse of process.
8.4 That there is no offence or any complaint by anybody in
respect of sale deed dated 09/06/2004 in favor of petitioner
Poonambhai nor any complaint in respect of transaction of
1970 by original land owners, and therefore, filling of FIR
against the petitioners in respect of transaction of the year
2004 or 1970 is nothing but gross abuse only for implicating
the petitioners in the offence at the instant of accused no.7,
who is real culprit.
8.5 That there is no grievance or proceedings challenging
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17118/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
sale deed of 2004 in favor of the petitioner Poonambhai.
8.6 That the petitioner have filed Regular Civil Suit
no.88/2014 challenging fraudulent sale deed dated
13/03/2008 on the basis of forged power of attorney. That the
Civil court has granted injunction in the suit by order dated
29/09/2016 at Exh.5 in favor of petitioners.
8.7 That all the accused no.7 to 11 are closely connected to
each other. As observed in the order dated 15/10/2013 by the
learned Sessions Court in respect of Regular bail, accused
no.9 Tarun Raval, in whose favor fraudulent sale deed dated
13/03/2008 was working, was sweeper at the office of
Kanubhai Shah - accused no.7.
8.8 That the petitioners are real victims of fraudulent
transactions by accused no.7 to 11, and therefore, the
petitioners filed complaints.
8.9 That the filling of FIR by the respondent no.2 is without
any locus or grievance as per the settled legal position, which
is nothing but an abuse of process of law.
8.10 That the petitioners have not made any
misrepresentation to the respondent no.2 nor there is any
transaction between the petitioners and respondent no.2, and
therefore, FIR u/s.420 of IPC is not maintainable.
8.11 That the matter involves transaction of private
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17118/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
properties between private persons under registered
agreement to sale, and therefore, filing of impugned FIR by
the respondent no.2 in the facts of the present case, is gross
abuse of process, which is required to be quashed in view of
settled legal position.
8.12 That the respondent no.2 has abused his powers by
becoming instrument in the hands of real culprits for
implicating the petitioners in the offence. The respondent no.2
has not joined Mohanbhai Jadav as an accused if the power of
attorney is bogus as per the story of respondent no.2, which
proves that the respondent no.2 has misused his powers by
not making fair and independent investigation for which strict
action is required to be taken against them.
8.13 That as held in the case of V.Y.Jose v/s. State of Gujarat
reported in 2009 (3) SCC 78, the offence of cheating cannot
be said to have been made out unless the ingredients of
deception of a person either by making a false or misleading
representation is made or fraudulently inducing any person to
deliver any property etc. are made out. That there is no basic
ingredients of cheating is made out in the present case
against the petitioners.
8.14 That the petitioners have not committed alleged offence
of forgery u/s.465,467,468,471 of the IPC and no ingredients
of forgery is made out against the and petitioners in the facts
of the present case, therefore, the impugned FIR is malafide
and gross abuse of process, and therefore, the same is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17118/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
required to be quashed.
8.15 That the respondent no.2, who has filed impugned FIR
has been joined as respondent no.2 in the present petition,
however, till date no affidavit in reply is filled, and thereby,
the averments of the petition remains uncontroverted, which
constitute admission on the part of the respondent no.2 as per
the settled legal position.
8.16 To buttress his submission, learned advocate Mr. SK
Patel has referred to and relied upon following authorities.
1. 2009 (7) SCC 495 in case Devendra v/s. State of
U.P, (Para-14 to 18)
2. 2009 (8) SCC 751 in case of Mohammed Ibrahim
v/s. State of Bihar (Para-18,20 to 23 & 25)
3. 2011 (7) SCC 59 in case of Joseph Salvaraj A v/s.
State of Gujarat & Ors. (Para-19)
8.17 Upon such submission, learned advocate Mr. Patel prays
to allow Criminal Misc. Application No.18011 of 2013 by
quashing and setting aside the impound FIR as well as filing
of charge sheet and all consequential proceedings.
9. Learned advocate Mr. Kunal Shah, appearing for
petitioner Pinak Desai, would submit that role of the
petitioner is limited to the extent of witnessing in the alleged
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17118/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
power of attorney, and nothing more than that. It is alleged in
the FIR that the petitioner did not know that power of
attorney is forged and sale deed executed upon such fraud /
forged power of attorney, therefore, he submits that since the
petitioner is innocent and has not played any major/active role
nor has been benefited by the forged document, continuation
of proceedings of the impugned FIR as well as charge sheet
against petitioner Pinak Desai is futile exercise.
9.1 Upon such submission, learned advocate Mr. Shah prays
to allow Criminal Misc. Application No.17118 of 2013 by
quashing and setting aside the impound FIR.
10. Per contra learned APP would submit that during the
investigation of the offence, overwhelming documents were
received in the investigation, which show that the petitioners
as well as other accused have snatched away the land of the
innocent persons/agriculturist. After tendering the report of
the investigating officer, learned APP has placed on record
whole details. He would further submit that even the
statements of the original owners of the land are also
recorded and it show that two of the original owners died at
the time when sale deed was executed in favour of petitioner
Poonambhai. and yet, forged power of attorney in name of
Mohanbhai Jadav, who was not in existence by the time, was
brought to the record and upon such forged power of
attorney, petitioner Poonambhai and others have got
registered sale deed executed in their favour. He would
further submit that during the investigation of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17118/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
applications given to Umra Police Station, it is unearthed by
the investigation officer that petitioner Poonambhai and
others have grasped and lay hold of plot Nos.25 and 30, which
demonstrates that the petitioners are also involved in
commission of the offence. Learned APP would further submit
that as far as petitioner Pinak Desai concern, the investigation
reveals that he was knowing fully well about the forged power
of attorney, and yet he has witnessed the document, which
could be evinced from various documents placed in charge
sheet collected during the investigation. He would further
submit that in the present case, the investigation is completed
long back ago and even charge is already framed and under
these circumstances, the Court should not exercise discretion
to quash the impugned FIR.
11. Regard being had to the rival submissions of learned
advocates appearing for the respective parties and on perusal
of the documentary evidence produced on record, it is
noticeable that the land in question was originally belonged to
agriculturist Ishwar Keshav, Nathu Keshav, Chhotu Dayal and
Jayanti Balu Patel. They have executed 30 Banakhats to 30
prospective purchasers on anticipation that they will get
permission to convert the land for use of residential purpose.
This happened in 1970. The expectation was that use of 30
plots for residential purpose shall be permitted by the
competent authority. Permission was sought from the Asst.
Collector on 12.2.1970 and all four original land owners of the
land got permission. Subsequent thereto, out of 30 different
plots fixed in the land, 20 plot holders have got executed sale
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17118/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
deed from agriculturist. 10 plots for which the sale deed was
not executed, were plot Nos.8,9,11 and 24 to 30. Qua them,
no sale deed was executed upto 2021. Kantibhai Ukani,
Rameshbhai Ukani, Pravin Ukani and Balubhai patel, who are
engaged in the business of selling and purchasing the land,
decided to purchase all 30 plots and thereafter, they have
purchased various plots except plot Nos.6,7,13,14 and 17. In
total, they have purchased 25 plots where sale deed was
executed for 15 plots and no sale deed was executed for 10
plots. However, they have got executed power of attorney -
agreement to sell from 10 plot holders. Kantibhai Ukani and
others have decided to sell 23 plots to Kanubhai Shah in the
year 2003-2004 from their holdings except plot Nos.25 and
30. Subsequent thereto, sale deeds were executed in favour
of Kanubhai Shah.
12. In the year 2004, power of attorney was created by all
four persons i.e. Kantibhai Ukani and others stating that in
the year 1971, Mr. Mohanbhai Jadav had been given power by
the original owners, namely Ishwar Keshav, Nathu Keshav,
Chhotu Dayal and Jayanti Balu Patel and then they got
executed the sale deed of the 7 plots behind the back of the
original owners. Noticeably, at the relevant time, out of four
persons i.e. Ishwar Keshav, Nathu Keshav, Chhotu Dayal and
Jayanti Balu Patel, Ishwar Keshav and Jayanti Balu Patel have
expired and later, the power of attorney, which was alleged to
have been executed in 1970/71, was used in 2004.
13. Except plot Nos.25 and 30, rest of the plots were sold to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17118/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
Mr. Kanubhai Shah through power of attorney. For other
transaction, no dispute arose between the parties. However,
subsequently the dispute arose between the parties for two
plots i.e. Nos.25 and 30, since no sale deed was executed in
favour of Kanubhai Shah, according to the case of the
prosecution, one Mr. Manish Baraiya was projected as power
of attorney of petitioner Poonambhai and pursuant to which,
sale deeds of plot Nos.25 and 30 were executed in name of
Tarunbhai Raval. The dispute started between petitioner
Poonambhai and Kanubhai Shah and they have filed
applications against each other. In their applications, having
been inquired by the investigating officer, the whole scam was
unearthed.
14. It appears that petitioner Mr. Poonambhai and others
have forged power of attorney of Mohanbhai Jadav, alleged to
have been executed in 1970, which, first time came to record
in the year 2004 and used to get the sale deed executed of
plot Nos.25 and 30. Noticeably, at that time, out of for
original owners, two owners namely Ishwar Keshav and
Jayanti Balu Patel have expired. This is first set of scam.
Second part of scam comes in the year 2008. In this scam,
Kanubhai Shah forged power of attorney in favour of
Manishbhai Baraiya and by using said power of attorney, sale
deed was executed in favour of Tarunbhai Raval.
15. In the premises of chequered history, what could be
found that petitioner Poonambhai as well as Kanubhai Shah
and others are equally involved in the activity of snatching /
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17118/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
grasping the land of innocent agriculturist.
16. It was argued by learned advocate Mr. SK Patel that the
original owners have not raised any contention that their
lands have been snatched away by Poonambhai and others.
Perusal of the investigation and charge sheet papers indicate
that original owners and their relatives have raised objection.
The statements are already on record and they are prima facie
sufficient to hold that land of plot Nos.25 and 30 have been
taken away by petitioner Poonambhai and subsequently by
Kanubhai Shah by forging power of attorney. Non-existence
of Mohanbhai Jadav - a person who is alleged to be the power
of attorney of original owner is also established during the
investigation and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that
prima facie case is made out against petitioner Poonambhai.
17. The investigation papers also reveal that the
documentary evidence prima facie supports the case of the
prosecution. This Court in quashing petition cannot refer and
analyze those documents, as the trial is writ large before the
learned trial Court, but prima facie, the Court finds that there
is sufficient material against the petitioner to put him to the
trial.
18. Various contentions raised during the arguments are
disputed facts. This Court in inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 of
the Code cannot appreciate them by holding mini trial.
19. As far as role of petitioner Pinak Desai is concerned,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17118/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
during the investigation, it was found that he was serving in
the office of Mr. Tarunbhai Raval, who is ultimate purchaser
of plot Nos.25 and 30. Power of attorney holder is Manish
Baraiya, he was sweeper in the office of Kanubhai Shah, the
alleged forged power of attorney is executed in his favour and
he has executed the sale deed in favour of Tarunbhai Raval.
Thus, the ring of material evidence is made out to the effect
that the petitioner Pinak Desai at the instance of Kanubhai
Shah acted upon to grab plot Nos.25 and 30 knowing fully
well that power of attorney in favour of Manish Baraiya is
totally bogus and forged and yet, he has given identity. So,
his role can also be seen as a co-conspirator.
20. In Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 185, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the position of law
for quashing the FIR as under:-
"8. It is well established that a High Court, in
exercising its extraordinary powers under Section 482
of the CrPC, may issue orders to prevent the abuse of
court processes or to secure the ends of justice. These
inherent powers are neither controlled nor limited by
any other statutory provision. However, given the
broad and profound nature of this authority, the High
Court must exercise it sparingly. The conditions for
invoking such powers are embedded within Section
482 of the CrPC itself, allowing the High Court to act
only in cases of clear abuse of process or where
intervention is essential to uphold the ends of justice.
9. It is in this backdrop that this Court, over the
course of several decades, has laid down the
principles and guidelines that High Courts must
follow before quashing criminal proceedings at the
threshold, thereby pre-empting the Prosecution from
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17118/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
building its case before the Trial Court. The grounds
for quashing, inter alia, contemplate the following
situations : (i) the criminal complaint has been filed
with mala fides; (ii) the FIR represents an abuse of the
legal process; (iii) no prima facie offence is made out;
(iv) the dispute is civil in nature; (v.) the complaint
contains vague and omnibus allegations; and (vi) the
parties are willing to settle and compound the dispute
amicably (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp
(1) SCC 335)."
21. The aforesaid parameters indicates that the FIR can be
quashed in a situation where criminal complaint has been
filed with mala fide or the FIR represents an abuse of the legal
process or no prima facie offence is made out or the dispute is
civil in nature or the complaint contains vague and omnibus
allegations; and/or the parties are willing to settle and
compound the dispute amicably. Learned advocate for the
petitioners, however, failed to establish any such parameters
touched to the case on hand.
22. In MCD v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, (1983) 1 SCC 1: 1983
SCC (Cri) 115, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that proceedings
can be quashed on the face of the complaint and papers
accompanying the same if no offence is constituted. The
Court cannot add or substract anything. In para 10, it has
been held as under:-
"10. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that proceedings
against an accused in the initial stages can be
quashed only if, on the face of the complaint or the
papers accompanying the same, no offence is
constituted. In other words, the test is that taking the
allegations and the complaint as they are, without
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17118/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
adding or subtracting anything, if no offence is made
out, then the High Court will be justified in quashing
the proceedings in exercise of its powers under
Section 482 of the present Code."
23. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
case of Mahendra K.C. v. State of Karnataka, (2022) 2 SCC
129, wherein it is observed thus:-
"16. ... the test to be applied is whether the
allegations in the complaint, as they stand, without
adding or detracting from the complaint, prima facie
establish the ingredients of the offence alleged. At
this stage, the High Court cannot test the veracity of
the allegations, nor, for that matter, can it proceed in
the manner that a judge conducting a trial would,
based on the evidence collected during the course of
the trial."
24. It is further argued by Learned advocate for the
petitioners that the PI has exceeded his jurisdiction and filed
the complaint and made the complainant as accused.
25. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of A.R.Antulay Versus
Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, 1984 (2) SCC 500, in para 6,
observed as under:-
"6. It is a well recognised principle of criminal
jurisprudence that anyone can set or put the criminal
law into motion except where the statute enact or
creating an offence indicates to the contrary. The
scheme of the Criminal P. C. envisages two parallel
and independent agencies for taking criminal
offences to Court. Even for the most serious offence
of murder, it was not disputed that a private
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17118/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
complaint can, not only be filed but can be
entertained and proceeded with according to law.
Locus standi of the complainant is a concept foreign
to criminal jurisprudence save and except that where
the statute creating an offence provides for the
eligibility of the complainant, by necessary
implication the general principle gets excluded by
such statutory provision. Numerous statutory
provisions, can be referred to in support of this legal
position under as (i) Section 187-A of Sea Customs
Act, 1878, (ii) Section 97 of Gold Control Act, 1968,
(iii) Section 6 of Imports and Exports Control Act,
1947, (iv) Section 271 and Section 279 of the
Income-tax Act, 1961, (v) Section 61 of the Foreign
Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, (vi) Section 621 of
the Companies Act, 1956 and (vii) Section 77 of the
Electricity (Supply) Act. This list is only illustrative
and not exhaustive. While Section 190 of the
Criminal P. C. permits anyone to approach the
Magistrate with a complaint, it does not prescribe
any qualification the complainant is required to fulfil
to be eligible to file a complaint. But where an
eligibility criterion for a complainant is contemplated
specific provisions have been made such as to be
found in Sections 195 to 199 of the Cr. P. C. These
specific provisions clearly indicate that in the
absence of any such statutory provision, a locus
standi of a complainant is a concept foreign to
criminal jurisprudence. In other words, the principle
that anyone can set or put the criminal law in motion
remains intact unless contra-indicated by a statutory
provision. This general principle of nearly universal
application is founded on a policy that an offence i.e.
an act or omission made punishable by any law for
the time being in force is not merely an offence
committed in relation to the person who suffers harm
but is also an offence against society. The society for
its orderly and peaceful development is interested in
the punishment of the offender. Therefore,
prosecution for serious offences is undertaken in the
name of the State representing the people which
would exclude any element of private vendatta or
vengeance. If such is the public policy underlying
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17118/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
penal statutes, who brings an act or, omission made
punishable by law to the notice of the authority
competent to deal with it, is immaterial and
irrelevant unless the statute indicates to the
contrary. Punishment of the offender in the interest
of the society being one of the objects behind penal
statutes enacted for larger good of the society, right
to initiate proceedings cannot be whittled down,
circumscribed or fettered by putting it into a
straight-jacket formula of locus standi unknown to
criminal jurisprudence, save and except specific
statutory exception. To hold that such an exception
exists that a private complaint for offences of
corruption committed by public servant is not
maintainable, the Court would require an
unambiguous statutory provision and a tangled web
of argument for drawing a farfetched implication,
cannot be a substitute for an express statutory
provision. In the matter of initiation of proceeding
before a special Judge under Section 8(1), the
Legislature while conferring power to take
cognizance had three opportunities to
unambiguously state its mind whether the
cognizance can be taken on a private complaint or
not. The first one was an opportunity to provide in
Section 8(1) itself by merely stating that the special
Judge may take cognizance of an offence on a police
report submitted to it by an investigating officer
conducting investigation as contemplated by Section
5-A. While providing for investigation by designated
police officers of superior rank, the Legislature did
not fetter the power of special Judge to take
cognizance in a manner otherwise than on police
report. The second opportunity was when by Section
8(3) a status of a deemed public prosecutor was
conferred on a private complainant if he chooses to
conduct the prosecution. The Legislature being
aware of a provision like the one contained in sec.
225 of the Criminal P. C., could have as well provided
that in every trial before a special Judge the
prosecution shall be conducted by a Public
Prosecutor, though that itself would not have been
decisive of the matter. And the third opportunity was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17118/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
when the Legislature while prescribing the
procedure prescribed for warrant cases to be
followed by special Judge did not exclude by a
specific provision that the only procedure which the
special Judge can follow is the one prescribed for
trial of warrant cases on a police report. The
disinclination of the Legislature to so provide points
to the contrary and no canon of construction permits
the Court to go in search of 'a hidden or implied
limitation on the power of the special Judge to take
cognizance unfettered by such requirement of its
being done on a police report alone. In our opinion, it
is no answer to this fairly well-established legal
position that for the last 32 years no case has come
to the notice of the Court in which cognizance was
taken by a special Judge in a private complaint for
offences punishable under the 1947 Act. If something
that did not happen in the past is to be the sole
reliable guide so as to deny any such thing
happening in the future, law would be rendered
static and slowly whether away."
26. The role of the first informant is to put the criminal
machinery into motion. There is no bar that if certain
material is found during the investigation, yet PI cannot be
first informant and lodge FIR. The scheme of section 154 of the
Code notify that every information relating to the commission
of cognizable offence has to be registered in the FIR.
27. The truthfulness and/or otherwise of the allegations
cannot be gone into by the High Court u/s 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 is the finding of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in case of Maneesha Yadav v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 643. It was observed:-
"13. As has already been observed hereinabove, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17118/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
Court would not be justified in embarking upon an
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the
complaint at the stage of quashing of the proceedings
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, the allegations
made in the FIR/complaint, if taken at their face
value, must disclose the commission of an offence and
make out a case against the accused. At the cost of
repetition, in the present case, the allegations made
in the FIR/complaint, even if taken at their face value,
do not disclose the commission of an offence or make
out a case against the accused. We are of the
considered view that the present case would fall
under Category-3 of the categories enumerated by
this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra)."
28. Simultaneously, while exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 of
the Code, the Court cannot hold mini trial and appreciate the
evidence. [See: Dharambeer Kumar Singh v. State of
Jharkhand, (2025) 1 SCC 392 as well as in case of CBI v.
Aryan Singh, (2023) 18 SCC 399]. The relevant para from the
judgment reads as under:-
"17. This Court, in a series of judgments, has held that
while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the High
Court is not supposed to hold a mini-trial. A profitable
reference can be made to the judgment in CBI v.
Aryan Singh [CBI v. Aryan Singh, (2023) 18 SCC 399:
2023 SCC OnLine SC 379]. The relevant paragraph
from the judgment is extracted hereunder: (SCC
paras 6-7)
6. ... As per the cardinal principle of law, at the
stage of discharge and/or quashing of the
criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers
under Section 482CrPC, the Court is not required
to conduct the mini-trial. ...
7. ... At the stage of discharge and/or while
exercising the powers under Section 482CrPC,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17118/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
the Court has very limited jurisdiction and is
required to consider 'whether any sufficient
material is available to proceed further against
the accused for which the accused is required to
be tried or not'."
29. It is undeniable fact that in the case on hand, the
investigation was permitted, which culminated into filing of
charge sheet before the learned trial Court. Even, it is
discernible that charge was already framed against the
petitioners accused. The learned trial Court is seized with the
matter. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Iqbal v. State of U.P., (2023) 8 SCC 734: 2023 SCC OnLine SC
949 that when the charge sheet has been filed, the learned
Trial Court should be left to appreciate the same. It was
observed:
"At the same time, we also take notice of the fact that
the investigation has been completed and the charge
sheet is ready to be filed. Although the allegations
levelled in the FIR do not inspire any confidence,
particularly in the absence of any specific date, time,
etc. of the alleged offences, we are of the view that
the appellants should prefer a discharge application
before the trial court under Section 227 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). We say so because
even according to the State, the investigation is over
and the charge sheet is ready to be filed before the
competent court. In such circumstances, the trial
court should be allowed to look into the materials
which the investigating officer might have collected
forming part of the charge sheet. If any such
discharge application is filed, the trial court shall look
into the materials and take a call whether any
discharge case is made out or not."
30. In view of above, since the FIR discloses commission of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17118/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
offence, the investigation has been completed and charge
sheet is already filed before the competent Court, this Court
cannot assess truthfulness of the FIR, under inherent
jurisdiction.
31. Resultantly, present petitions fail and stand dismissed.
Rule discharged. Interim relief granted earlier stands
vacated.
32. It is clarified that the observations made herein above
are limited to decision of the petition and therefore, this order
shall not be cited as precedent in any pending matters before
any Court of law.
33. Registry to maintain copy of this order in other allied
matter.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
