Gujarat High Court
Suresh Ramanlal Prajapati vs State Of Gujarat on 1 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10571/2019 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 10571 of 2019
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 16113 of 2019
==========================================================
SURESH RAMANLAL PRAJAPATI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
CRMA 10571/2019
JIGNESHKUMAR P PANDAV(8297) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR CHINTAN DAVE, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
CRMA 16113/2019
MR RUTURAJ NANAVATI for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR CHINTAN DAVE, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 01/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Since common questions of law and fact arises in both
the petitions, with the consent of learned advocates for the
respective parties, both the petitions are taken up and
disposed of by this common order.
2. By way of these petitions under section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have prayed to
quash and set aside impugned FIR being C.R.No.I - 82 of 2019
registered with Karjan Police Station, for the offences punishable
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10571/2019 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 114 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 03.05.2019 a sale deed bearing No.851 was being
registered for the land falling within the revenue limit of Village
Karjan, Taluka Karjan, District: Vadodara bearing survey
no.985/1/1 & 985/1/2 admeasuring 4922 Square Meters (in
short "the land in dispute") and the said sale deed was executed
at the office of the Sub Registrar at Karjan, District: Vadodara
Rural.
3.2 That the agreement to sale as an annexure produced in the
registered sale deed No-851/2018 was forged and fabricated and
that the agreement to sale produced in the sale deed No-
851/2018 was signed by minors who are accused No-(5), (6) &
(9) to the present FIR and further alleged that the original
complainant had oral contract to the said land in question and
has paid consideration of the said land INR3,73,000/- in the
year 1999.
3.3 That the original complainant upon knowledge of the Reg.
Sale deed No-851/2018 filed a criminal complaint and in the
said complaint the investigation officer called upon the present
petitioners in connection to that said complaint and statements
of all 9 accused persons were recorded. Upon instructions of
investigation agency the case status of pending civil suit
No.6/2019, original agreement to sale dated 5/6/2000 was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10571/2019 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
produced by accused No(2). The mistake of annexure of
agreement to sale in Reg.Sale Deed No-851/2018 was corrected
by "CHUK DURASTI DASTAVEJ" No-411/2019 and the same
was also produced before the investigation agency upon their
instructions. The advocate who drafted the Reg.Sale Deed
851/2018 & No-411/2019 also saluted a clarification letter qua
an application to show readiness to come and give statement for
such a mistake committed by his clerk. Subsequently present
FIR was registered at Karjan Police Station, Vadodara Rural
against the petitioners.
4. Learned advocates for the respective petitioners would
submit that after 19 years of the alleged incident, the FIR was
filed without any explanation of filing the FIR belatedly. They
would further submit that bare reading of the FIR at the most
would indicate that there is oral agreement and the terms and
conditions of the oral agreement has been breached, which is
essentially a civil dispute between the parties and does not
attract any criminal liability. They would further submit that
levelling the allegations of offences punishable Sections 406,
420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 114 of the IPC are not in existence
since the beginning. They would further submit that the
complainant has filed Special Civil Suit No.6 of 2019 before the
competent civil Court at Karjan under Order 7 Rule 11(D) of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which was rejected by the
learned civil Court. They would further submit that challenge
was made to the said order by way of filing First Appeal No.1727
of 2022 before the Division Bench of this Court and on 6.7.2022,
the complainant has unconditionally withdrawn the first appeal
in wake of compromise arrived at between the parties. In that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10571/2019 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
circumstances, they would submit that no issue is otherwise
survived in view of such settlement and compromise arrived at
between the parties and therefore, the petitioners are not sent
for facing the turbulence of trial. Upon such submissions,
learned advocates for the respective petitioners pray to allow
these petitions.
5. Private respondent is served, but did not choose to remain
present.
6. Learned APP after placing on record report of the
investigating officer, requests to pass necessary orders.
7. Going by the facts, it would be noticed that the
complainant claimed that he has purchased the land in dispute,
which was old tenure land. It is also averred that the
complainant has purchased the disputed land after executing
oral agreement to sell between the parties in 1999 and at that
time, the complainant has paid Rs.3,73,075/- to Mr.
Pankajkumar Mehta and Mr. Chandrakant Patel by fixing the
total price of the land at Rs.1,08,00,000/-. The FIR also
showcase that according to the complainant, he was ready and
willing to pay remaining and balance amount of sale
consideration, but the sellers were not executing the sale deed
and thereafter, in 2015, measurement of the land in dispute was
going on and in 2017, the new tenure land was converted into
old tenure land and in 2018, the land in dispute was converted
into NA land. After completion of all this procedure, when the
sale deed was executed in favour of other persons, the
complainant raised as phoenix and filed FIR on 2019 followed by
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10571/2019 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
filing Special Civil Suit No.6 of 2019 for relief of specific
performance. However, the Special Civil Suit stood rejected on
the ground that the suit is filed beyond the period of limitation.
The competent civil Court believed that plea of oral agreement
does not subsist as it is barred u/s 43 of the Gujarat Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 so also u/s 23(1) of the
Contract Act. All these reasons has culminated into rejection of
the plaint.
8. The complainant being aggrieved by the judgment and
order passed by the competent civil Court in Special Civil Suit,
filed first appeal before the Division Bench of this Court and on
6.7.2022, the complainant has unconditionally withdrawn the
first appeal in wake of compromise arrived at between the
parties. The order passed by the Division Bench of this Court
reads as under:-
"Learned appearing for instructions, advocate, the
Mr.Jenil under appellant, seeks Shah the unconditional
withdrawal of the first appeal in wake of the compromise
arrived at between the parties.
Permission, as sought for withdrawal, is granted. First
Appeal stands disposed of as withdrawn."
9. In view of above, according to this Court, since the factual
premises of the FIR has settled in a civil proceedings and later
on has compromised between the parties, the petitioners are now
not required to face the turbulence of the trial.
10. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. B.Bhajanlal & ors., AIR
1992 SC 604, the Hon'ble Apex Court summed up the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10571/2019 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10571/2019 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
private and personal grudge."
10.1 The findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 1,3 and 7
are attracted in the present case. In view of above, present
petition deserves consideration.
11. In the result, present petitions are allowed and impugned
FIR being C.R.No.I - 82 of 2019 registered with Karjan Police
Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420,
465, 467, 468, 471, 114 of the IPC as well as all other
consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua
the petitioners herein are hereby quashed and set aside
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
