Gujarat High Court
Vasudev Narandas Wadhwani vs State Of Gujarat on 31 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7833/2014 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 7833 of 2014
==========================================================
VASUDEV NARANDAS WADHWANI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS HETVI H SANCHETI(5618) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. TIRTHRAJ PANDYA ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 31/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has prayed
to quash and set aside the FIR I-C.R. No. 4 of 2014
registered with Matar Police Station,Kheda for the offences
for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467,
468, 471 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Hetvi H. Sancheti for the
petitioner and learned APP Mr. Tirthraj Pandya who has
placed on record the report of the investigation.
2.1 Despite respondent No. 2 is served, he did not remain
present.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7833/2014 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
3. According to learned advocate Ms. Sancheti the
petitioner has not acted in his personal capacity but as a
Manager of the Gujarat State Financial Corporation ( for
short " the GSFC"), executed the deed at Annexure F. She
has further submitted that the power of attorney holder of
the original owner apprehended that the titles and the
ownership rights of the land bearing survey No. 1346/2 is
also transferred at Annexure F, however, the apprehension
of the first informant being the power of Attorney holder of
the original owner is incorrect.
3.1 A lease was executed between the original owner and
Shakti Rice and Pulse Mills by virtue of lease deed dated
4.3.1983 with respect to the disputed land. Pursuant to
which Shakti Rice and Pulse Mills took possession and
constructed the factory along with plant and machinery and
the same came to be mortgaged to GSFC in lieu of availment
of loan. GSFC had taken the possession of the disputed
property along with the construction and plant and
machinery on account of the default of payment of loan by
Shakti Rice and Pulse Mills. She would further submit that
subsequently the GSFC decided to sell the construction
and machinery carried out on the disputed land by way of
public auction for recovery of loan amount. She further
submitted that the M/S Shree Jay Santram Rice and Pulse
Mills was the successful bidder in the public auction carried
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7833/2014 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
out by GSFC.
3.3 The construction and the machineries of the Shakti
Rice and Pulse Mills was sold by GSFC to Jay Santram Rice
and Pulse Mills along with the land which was leased to
Shakti Rice and Pulse Mills on the condition of "AS IS
WHERE IS BASIS" and subject to the same rights and
liabilities of Shakti Rice and Pulse Mills.
3.4 Learned advocate Ms. Sancheti thereafter referred to
the judgment in the case of Regular Civil Suit No. 33 of
2014 in the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Matar to submit
that the original owners have claimed that their title have
been disturbed due to selling of the disputed property by
GSFC. She submitted that later on the original owner and
their heirs have filed the affidavit before the learned City
Civil Court and also tendered compromise purshis pursuant
to which the suit was disposed of by way of compromise
settling of the disputes between the parties.
4. In the background of the facts the learned advocate
Ms. Sancheti submit that the petitioner is nowhere involved
in the offence as alleged in the FIR. The petitioner had
carried out purported act of executing the sale deed
(Annexure F) in capacity of Manager of GSFC following his
duty and therefore the petitioner may not be directed to face
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7833/2014 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
the trial.
4.1 Upon above submission learned advocate Ms. Sancheti
submit to allow this petition.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State Mr. Tirthraj
Pandya does not find any different facts then the facts
asserted by the learned advocate Ms. Hetvi Sancheti.
6. Having heard the rival submissions of both the sides
and having perused the record, what appears is that the
petitioner was serving as a Manager in the GSFC at the
relevant point of time. The factual aspect which is rightly
pointed out by learned advocate Ms. Sancheti,
demonstrates that the land of survey no. 1346/2
admeasuring 0.33 guntas equals to 31 sq. mts was owned
by Parmar family. A lease of 30 years was executed between
Parmar family and Shakti Rice Sample mills on 4.3.1983
with a yearly rent of Rs. 1500/-. Shakti Rice Mills and
Pulse Mills through its partner have availed the loan from
the GSFC by mortgaging the construction and the
machineries placed on the aforesaid land. Later on since the
Shakti Rice and Pulse Mills defaulted in paying the amount
of loan, GSFC taking recourse of the State Financial
Corporation Act had taken the possession of the
construction and machinery of the Shakti Rice and Pulse
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7833/2014 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
mills along with possession of land, subject to the same
rights and obligations as created in favour of Shakti Rice
and Pulse Mills by original owners. As per the available
provision, GSFC conducted public auction of the
construction and machinery of the Shakti Rice and Pulse
Mills. M/s. Jay Santram Rice and Pulse Mills a
partnership firm became a successful bidder. Therefore, sale
deed at Annexure F was executed in favour of the partners
of Jay Santram Rice and Pulse Mills by the petitioner as the
Manager of the GSFC. The indenture witnessed following
conditions :
"1. In pursuance to the letter of acceptance of offer
dated 1/2/89_and the purchaser having already
paid the amount, the vendors DOTH HEREBY sale
convey, transfer and assign to the purchaser M/S
SHREE JAY SANTRAM RICE & PULSE MILL a
partnership concern all the right title and interest of
the Industrial concern on AS IS WHERE basis and
subject
to the same rights, as the Industrial concern by
virtue of the provision of section 29 of the act, with
all other legal and incidental rights in respect of the
properties sold, transferred, conveyed and assigned
to the purchaser.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7833/2014 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
2. The purchase shall get the same title, right and
interest as "The Industrial Concern' possessed in
respect in the properties subject matter of sale and
shall enjoy the said rights and interest uninterrupted
by the vendors and or by any other person claiming
though by or under the said parties."
7. The sale was made on the condition of AS IS WHERE
IS BASIS and subject to the same rights as Shakti Rice and
Pulse Mills was holding. Hence, the purchaser-successful
bidder was also getting the same rights and obligations as
Shakti Rice and Pulse Mills was holding. Hence, purchaser-
successful bidder Jay Santram Rice and Pulse Mills stepped
into the shoes of Shakti Rice and Pulse Mills.
8. In view of above, what could be deduced that the
selling of the land had never taken place. It was a
mortgaged land. The possession of the land goes in favour
of the successful bidder that is Jay Santram Rice and
Pulse Mills with rights and obligations that were held by
Shakti Rice and Pulse Mills.
8.1 Moreover it could be noticed from the proceeding from
the Civil Suit No. 23 of 2014 that the Parmar family-original
owners and their successorS who have questioned the
transaction compromised the same by filing purshis from
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7833/2014 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
Exh. 92, 90 and 95 pursuant to which the suit was
disposed of by judgment and order dated 18.6.2022.
Notably the FIR was filed by Shaileshbhai Somabhai Jhala
POA of original owners of land. The Parmar family and their
successor in a suit proceeding by filing Exh. 77 purshis
declared that Shailesh Somabhai Jhala is not the power of
attorney now and revoked the Power of Attorney.
9. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner who
acted as a Manager named in present criminal proceedings
neither has gained anything, on the contrary has lost the
peace of mind while acting as a Manager of GSFC. The FIR
from the inception is unsustainable against the petitioner
and that to without joining GSFC as an accused. Thus, the
FIR in the aforesaid premises has no succinct value, the
petitioner cannot be sent to face any trial which will be
sheer abuse of process of law.
10. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. B.Bhajanlal &
ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, the Hon'ble Apex Court summed
up the proposition of law, which reads as under:-
"(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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7833/2014 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
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."
The findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 1,3 and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7833/2014 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
7 are attracted in the present case. In view of above,
present petition deserves consideration.
11. Resultantly the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR
I-C.R. No. 4 of 2014 registered with Matar Police Station,
Kheda and consequential proceedings are hereby quashed
and set aside qua the petitioner.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
MARY VADAKKAN
