Gujarat High Court
Mainaki Sanjay Mehta vs State Of Gujarat on 9 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3510/2012 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 3510 of 2012
==========================================================
MAINAKI SANJAY MEHTA & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SNEHA A JOSHI(2156) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MS BANNA S DUTTA(315) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 09/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Code"), the petitioners prayed for quashing and setting aside
FIR being C.R.No. - II 26 of 2012 registered with Balasinor
Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323,
504, 506(2), 114 of the IPC as well as all other consequential
proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the
petitioners herein.
2. Seeking quashment of the FIR, Learned advocate for the
petitioners would submit that the essential ingredients of the
offences punishable u/s 323, 504, 506(2) are not established
on bare reading of the FIR. She would further submit that civil
dispute existed between the parties and the impugned FIR is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3510/2012 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
filed with a view to presurrize the petitioners. She would
further submit that now the civil dispute is over and it turned
in favour of the complainant. She would further submit that
Criminal Case No.896 of 2012 is registered and in the said
Criminal Case, learned JMFC, Balasinor on belief that there is
civil disputes between the parties and filing of the FIR inter se
is with a view to give pressure to the petitioners, quashed the
criminal complaint. She would further submit that therefore,
continuation of criminal proceedings is now abuse of process
of law. She referred to the judgment of the Coordinate Bench
of this Court in case of Rajeshbhai Manibhai Patel Vs. State of
Gujarat, 2024 JX (Guj) 1707.
2.1 By making above submissions, Learned advocate for the
petitioners prays to allow this petition and to quash and set
aside impugned FIR.
3. Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Dutta for the private
respondent would submit that the petitioners, who are
habitual in filing the FIR. She would further submit that false
allegation of encroachment did not survive to the test before
the competent civil Court and the false allegations, which
were levelled in the Criminal Case by way of cross FIR is also
not withstand to the judicial scrutiny and ultimlately, the
complainant was acquitted from the false charge levelled
against the complainant. In view of above, she submits that
the petitioner beinf bereft of merit, deserves no consideration.
4. Joining the hands of learned advocate for the private
respondent, learned APP would submit that two orders on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3510/2012 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
record i.e. judgment in Regular Civil Suit No.56 of 2011 and
in Regular Civil Suit No.896 of 2012 indicate that the
petitioner is habitual in making false allegations against the
complainant and that is established from the aforestated
judgments. He would further submit that the judgment in
case of Rajeshbhai Manibhai Patel (supra) relied upon by
Learned advocate for the petitioners would not render any
help to the petitioners as it was a case having fact where the
complainant was failed to make pressure upon the applicant
to including his name in the property record without having
any details over the disputed property. Upon such
submissions, learned APP requests to dismiss the petition.
5. Regard being held to the rival submissions of learned
advocates for the parties and paying anxious consideration to
the submissions, at the outset, I may refer to the gist of the
FIR, which reads as under:-
"That on 21.2.2012 at about 9:00 am in the morning,
when I was sitting at my home and chopping
vegetables, my neighbours Mandakiniben Sanjaybhai
Mehta and Sanjaybhai Ramanlal Mehta started giving
foul abuses by saying that "you people have made
encroachment on our house, which is illegal and I will
see that you and your family members are done to
death. That Mandakiniben has slept me thrice and
also threatened to kill. That Sanjaybhai was also
giving foul abuses and passing threats. Therefore,
my complaint is against both the persons. Said
complaint is supported by the investigation of my in-
laws."
6. Admittedly, between the parties, domestic dispute has
arisen on unveil of civil dispute. The petitioners alleged that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3510/2012 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
the complainant has encroached upon different land and
pursuant to which, the complainant was forced to file civil
suit, which ultimately, returned in his favour. Moreover, the
petitioners have filed FIR, which culminated into Criminal
Case No.892 of 2012. The learned trial Court after
appreciating the evidence on record, believed that since there
is previous enmity between the parties on the touchstone of
civil and domestic dispute, false FIR is filed. Present FIR is
counterblast or the FIR in the same breath. The contents of
the FIR if seen, it shows that the petitioners have uttered
filthy words without specifying what exact words the
petitioners have uttered on the belief that the petitioners have
alleged that they have encroached into the land and some
threats were passed. It is also alleged that the petitioner No.1
Mainaki has given slept on the chick of the complainant.
However, all these allegations lack legitimate foundation.
There is no medical treatment taken by the complainant,
which may establish that she got hurt as defined in section
319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 having
punishable clause in section 323 of the IPC.
7. Perusing the contents of the FIR, what could be noticed
that so far as offence punishable u/s 504 and 506(2) of the IPC
are concerned, there cannot be an intentional insult with an
intent to provoke breach of peace. These essential ingredients
are totally lacking on reading the FIR as well as all the
evidence on record. At no point of time, it comes on record
that because of intentional insult by the accused, the
complainant was provoked to break public peace or to commit
any other offence. Considering the contents of the FIR, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3510/2012 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
prosecution failed to bring the case within four corners of
"with an intent to cause alarm to the complainant". What
could be noticed that both the FIRs are filed by the parties to
settle their domestic and civil disputes and the present FIR is
filed as the complainant is acquitted from the criminal case
and now, the petitioners are facing prosecution.
8. In the aforesaid circumstances, now since the civil
disputes between the parties are buried or put at rest by the
judicial pronouncement, continuation of proceedings of the
FIR against the petitioners is futile exercise.
9. 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3510/2012 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
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."
9.1 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.
10. This Court is quite conscious that power u/s 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is extraordinary power and
should be used sparingly, as the exercise of such power would
scuttle the FIR at the threshold. But, if the FIR fails to make
out essential ingredients of the offence, power should be
exercised.
11. Resultantly, this application is allowed. The impugned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3510/2012 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
FIR being C.R.No. - II 26 of 2012 registered with Balasinor
Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323,
504, 506(2), 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. Direct
service is permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
