Gujarat High Court
Patel Vallabhbhai Punjaram vs State Of Gujarat on 1 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19879/2014 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. 19879 of 2014
==========================================================
PATEL VALLABHBHAI PUNJARAM & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SHIVANG M SHAH(5916) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MS DHARA M SHAH(5546) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR. CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 01/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash and set aside the
Criminal Case No.56 of 2010 with the learned Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Kadi and all other proceedings initiated pursuant thereto.
2. The Respondent No.2-Complainant and the Applicant-
Accused are co-tenants in Property No. City No. 12/1 situated in
City Survey No. 71/B1 at Village: Kadi, Taluka Kadi, District
Mehsana, for the past 20 years. On 22.09.2008, the complainant
entered into an agreement with the applicant for operating a hotel
business under the name "Tulsi" on the said premises owned by
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19879/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
Shri Gulabnabi Haji Mohmad and Shri Abdulkadar Mohamad
Siddiki. It is alleged that the applicant started acting in a manner
detrimental to the complainant's interest in the joint business and
subsequently forged a Consent Agreement dated 13.10.2010 by
affixing signatures of the original owners in the presence of a notary
to obtain an electricity connection, and further attempted to exclude
the complainant's name from GEB and Nagarpalika records.
2.1. Upon learning of the forged consent, the original owners are
stated to have executed an affidavit dated 08.11.2010, disowning the
signatures on the alleged consent agreement. Relying on these
events, the complainant filed a private complaint against the
applicant, leading the learned JMFC, Kadi, to direct investigation
under Section 202(1) of the Cr.P.C., culminating in issuance of
process vide order dated 12.09.2014. It is the case of the applicant
that the complainant, being neither the aggrieved party nor
authorized by the original owners, has misused the criminal
process. A Regular Civil Suit No. 45 of 2012 filed by the original
owners against both parties for recovery of rent and possession is
already pending. Hence, the present petition is filed under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of Criminal Inquiry Case No. 56
of 2010 and the order dated 12.09.2014 passed by the learned JMFC,
Kadi.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19879/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
3. Learned advocate Ms. Dhara Shah, appearing for the
petitioners, assailing the issuance of process by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Kadi, submitted that the impugned order has
been passed without due application of mind. It is contended that
the learned trial Court failed to consider the crucial fact that the
person whose signature is allegedly forged--Mr. Ghulam Nabi Haji
Mohammad and Mr. Abdul Kadir Mohammad--has not lodged any
complaint in that regard. Instead, a private complaint has been
instituted at the behest of a third party, alleging forgery of the said
signatures on a document titled Sammati Karar Lekh (Annexure-B).
3.1. She further submitted that the dispute is essentially of a civil
nature, arising out of a partnership disagreement, wherein the
complainant is one of the partners. The allegation pertains to the
forgery of the landlord's signature on the Sammati Karar Lekh
(Annexure-B), purportedly executed between the partners.
3.2. It was also brought to the attention of this Court that the
landlord had instituted Civil Suit No. 45 of 2012 before the learned
Principal Civil Judge, Kadi, seeking vacant and peaceful possession
of the demised premises. However, the said suit was dismissed for
non-prosecution. Thereafter, a restoration application being Civil
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19879/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2024 was preferred, which too
came to be rejected by the competent Court, i.e., the Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Kadi.
3.3. All these proceedings, learned counsel contended, clearly
demonstrate that the private complaint is motivated by malice and
has been filed with the sole intention to harass the petitioners,
despite the complainant lacking the necessary locus standi. The
learned trial Court, without appreciating these material aspects,
proceeded to issue process, thereby committing a serious error of
law and jurisdiction.
3.4. Upon such submission, learned advocate Ms. Dhara Shah
urged this Court to allow the present petition and quash the order
of issuance of process in the private complaint.
4. Though served, the private respondent has chosen not to
appear and contest the petition.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State,
supported the impugned order and submitted that it is an
undisputed fact that the petitioners forged the signatures of the
landlord on the document titled Sammati Karar Lekh (Annexure-B).
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19879/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
The learned trial Court has duly taken into consideration this
material aspect. He further submitted that the said forged document
was subsequently utilized by the petitioners before government
authorities, including for obtaining an electricity connection, thereby
projecting the forged document as genuine before the competent
authority.
5.1. On the strength of the above submissions, learned APP
prayed for dismissal of the present petition.
6. I have heard the learned advocates for both sides and have
perused the material on record, including the factual background of
the case.
6.1. The complainant, Shri Kantilal Gogajibhai, has filed a private
complaint alleging commission of offences punishable under
Sections 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 506, and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the accused-petitioners. The said
complaint was registered as Inquiry Case No. 56 of 2010.
6.2. The learned trial Court, upon receipt of the complaint,
directed that an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure be conducted, and accordingly directed the concerned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19879/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
police officer to investigate the allegations and submit a report
within 30 days.
6.3. The complainant and the petitioners were business partners
and had commenced a venture under the name and style of "Tulsi
Hotel," situated on a premises owned by a landlord. It is alleged
that the petitioners, with dishonest intent, forged the Sammati Karar
Lekh (Annexure-B) by fabricating the signature of the landlord and
submitted the said forged document before the electricity
department for the purpose of obtaining an electricity connection
for the said premises.
6.4. Upon considering the material placed on record, the learned
trial Court, having formed a prima facie opinion, assigned reasons
in Paragraph 4 of the impugned order for issuance of process
against the accused, which is as under:-
"4.Upon a careful consideration of the complaint, verification
statement, and the police report submitted by the complainant,
it emerges that the immovable property bearing C.T. No. 16/1
and C.T. No. 71/B/1, situated in the vicinity of Kadi, has been
in possession of the complainant under a tenancy arrangement
for the past 20 years. The said property is owned by Shri
Ghulam Nabi Haji Mohammad and Shri Abdulkader
Mohammad Siddiqui. It is evident from the documentary
evidence produced by the complainant and the findings
recorded in the police report that the complainant had entered
into a Partnership Deed with Accused No.1 dated 22.09.2008
for running a hotel business. Furthermore, as per the Rent
Agreement executed on the same day, i.e., 22.09.2008, the said
owners had let out the subject premises to the complainant. It
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19879/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
is also indicated that an earlier rent agreement for the said
property was executed on 08.02.2000. In support of his claim,
the complainant has also produced an electricity bill issued by
North Gujarat Electricity Company for the billing period of
March-April 2010, which reflects that the complainant was in
possession of the tenanted premises. Additionally, the
complainant has relied upon the partnership agreement,
evidencing that he and Accused No.1 had commenced
business under the name and style of Hotel Tulsi as co-partners
with effect from 22.09.2008. Furthermore, the complainant had
been issued a Restaurant Registration Certificate by the Deputy
Collector and Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 31.07.2009, and a
Municipal Trade License dated 07.07.2008 was also issued by
the Kadi Municipality. The registration certificate for the
establishment also stands in the name of the complainant
effective from 01.07.2008. According to the complainant,
Accused No.1, in connivance with Accused No.2, fraudulently
prepared a Consent Agreement purportedly on behalf of the
property owners, which was allegedly executed before Notary
Shri A.K. Mehta. Accused No.2 is said to have signed the
document as a witness. It is alleged that the said document
contains forged signatures of the actual owners and was
executed without their knowledge or consent, either oral or
written. The complainant has categorically denied signing any
such consent agreement and contends that the said agreement
is forged and fabricated. The alleged forged Consent
Agreement, dated 13.10.2010, bears the names of Accused No.1
and the original owners and is claimed to have been notarized
by Shri A.K. Mehta. It has further been brought on record that
Shri Ghulam Nabi Haji Mohammad, one of the original owners,
addressed a communication dated 08.11.2010 to U.G.V.C.L.,
requesting the disconnection of the existing electricity
connection in the name of the complainant. It is alleged that
Accused No.1, on the basis of false and fabricated documents,
managed to obtain a new electricity connection in his own
name. The complainant has asserted that he had never granted
any consent for such an application and, hence, submitted a
formal request for the disconnection of the said newly obtained
connection. Subsequently, the complainant submitted a
representation dated 06.12.2010 to the Chief Officer of the Kadi
Municipality and the concerned Zonal Officer, seeking
cancellation of the license of Hotel Tulsi, which was originally
granted in his name. He stated that although the original
license stood cancelled for personal reasons, Accused No.1
fraudulently secured a fresh license by submitting forged
documents. It is further alleged that Accused No.1, without
obtaining any form of consent from the original owners or the
complainant, executed a false consent deed, obtained a new
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19879/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
electricity connection, and also misused fabricated documents
to obtain permissions and licenses related to the hotel
business. An affidavit dated 08.11.2010 was allegedly sworn
before Notary Shri D.M. Patel in furtherance of the fraudulent
activities. The police, during the course of investigation,
recorded the statements of the complainant and other relevant
witnesses, which corroborate the allegations made in the
complaint. Additionally, the complainant filed an objection
application dated 16.12.2019 opposing the continuation of the
electricity connection at the Hotel Tulsi premises in Detroj
Circle, and the said application has been duly acknowledged
and accepted by the competent authority.Furthermore, the
complainant has addressed a written communication to the
Executive Engineer, Shri Kadinao, raising objections to the
unauthorised grant of a temporary electricity connection in the
name of Hotel Tulsi. It is alleged that Accused No.1
orchestrated the procurement of the said temporary connection
through illicit means. Upon perusal of the documents produced
by Shri Sundar Kame, it is evident that while certain records
reflect the name of Accused No.1 as the occupant, the rent
receipts are unequivocally issued in the name of the
complainant. Additionally, the certificate issued by the District
Health Officer dated 06.01.2011 is noted to be in the name of
Accused No.1. Furthermore, the statements recorded by the
police from both the complainant and the original owner of the
property, Shri Ghulam Nabi Haji Mohammad, categorically
support the complainant's version. Both have affirmed that no
consent was ever given for obtaining any electricity connection
and no agreement was executed in that regard. Significantly,
the original owner himself has expressly denied having let out
the disputed premises to Accused No.1, and has further denied
executing any rental or consent agreement in favour of
Accused No.1. In light of this unequivocal denial by the true
owner, there is no plausible reason to disbelieve the
complainant's assertions. In view of the foregoing discussion, it
is prima facie established that Accused No.1 has fabricated a
bogus and forged tenancy agreement for the purpose of
illegally obtaining a water connection in respect of the
tenanted premises, and for causing the premises to be
registered in his name. Further, Accused No.2, having attested
the said forged document as a witness, has actively facilitated
the fraud. The forged document purportedly bears the forged
signatures of both the complainant and the original owner and
has been used as a genuine instrument with the intent to
secure unlawful advantage and to effect unauthorised transfer
of tenancy rights to Accused No.1 exclusively."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19879/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
6.5. Learned advocate Ms. Dhara Shah made extensive
submissions; however, she conspicuously refrained from addressing
the core issue regarding the signature of the landlord on Sammati
Karar Lekh (Annexure-B). She neither denied the allegation that the
signature was forged, nor asserted that the signature on the
document was genuinely that of the landlord.
6.6. On the contrary, the landlord has filed an affidavit at
Annexure-D and also addressed a letter to the competent authority
seeking disconnection of the electricity connection. Both documents
unequivocally indicate that the landlord has categorically stated that
he has not signed the document titled Sammati Karar Lekh
(Annexure-B).
6.7. It is an admitted fact that the complainant is a partner in Tulsi
Hotel along with the accused. The electricity connection for the said
premises was allegedly obtained by relying upon the forged
document. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the complainant,
being a third party, lacks the locus standi to file the present
complaint.
6.8. What emerges from the record is that the learned trial Court
has recorded cogent and compelling reasons while issuing process
against the accused. At this preliminary stage, the Court was only
required to examine whether a prima facie case exists warranting
issuance of process. The learned trial Court, upon being satisfied
with the material available on record, rightly exercised its discretion
in issuing process. I find no infirmity, much less any perversity, in
the impugned order warranting interference under the limited scope
of jurisdiction. The contention canvassed by the learned advocate
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19879/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
Ms. Dhara Shah does not merit acceptance.
6.9. It is apt to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Ltd. v/ s. State of
Uttar Pradesh [2020 SCC Online SC 958], in para 41 has held as
under :-
"41. It is needless to point out that ever since the decision of
the Privy Council in King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed AIR
1945 PC 18, the law is well settled that Courts would not thwart
any investigation. It is only in cases where no cognizable
offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first
information report that the Court will not permit an
investigation to go on. As cautioned by this Court in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the power of
quashing should be exercised very sparingly and with
circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. While
examining a complaint, the quashing of which is sought, the
Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or
in the complaint. In S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat (2001) 7 SCC
659 this Court again cautioned that criminal proceedings ought
not to be scuttled at the initial stage. Quashing of a complaint
should rather be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary
rule. In S.M. Datta (supra), this Court held that if a perusal of
the first information report leads to disclosure of an offence
even broadly, law courts are barred from usurping the
jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State
operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not
to tread over the other sphere."
6.10. In paragraph 103 of the decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down
that:-
"103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the
power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised
very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the
rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be iustified in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19879/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
embarkina upon an enauirv as to the reliability or genuineness
or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the
complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not
confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to
its whim or caprice."
7. Applying the ratio laid down in the aforementioned judgment
to the facts of the present case, this Court finds no justifiable reason
to interdict the proceedings at the threshold. Accordingly, the
petition stands DISMISSED. Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated.
Rule/Notice, if any, is discharged.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
MANISH MISHRA
