Bhikhankhan Bajitkhan Pathan vs State Of Gujarat
2025 Latest Caselaw 7646 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Bhikhankhan Bajitkhan Pathan vs State Of Gujarat on 4 November, 2025

                                                                                                                     NEUTRAL CITATION




                             R/CR.MA/28206/2017                                        ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025

                                                                                                                     undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                             R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
                                           FIR/ORDER) NO. 28206 of 2017
                       ==========================================================
                                                  BHIKHANKHAN BAJITKHAN PATHAN
                                                               Versus
                                                      STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR HD KACHCHHI(5513) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                       MR KETAN I ACHARYA(2415) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                       MRS B K ACHARYA(5159) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                       MR JAY MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================
                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

                                                            Date : 04/11/2025

                                                             ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R.No.I-152 of 2017 registered with Langhnaj Police Station, Mahesana for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 114 of Indian Penal Code and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Facts of the case are as under :-

2.1. That the petitioner and the complainant i.e. the respondent no. 2 herein are the family members. That the land bearing Block No. 520 (Old Survey No. 486 (1)) admeasuring about 1-07- 26 H. Are. Sq.mtrs was of the joint property of the petitioner and his family members including the complainant i.e. the respondent no. 2. On 09/05/2002, the said land was sold by the petitioner and other co-owners to Ashokkumar Ramabhai Patel and Govindbhai Bhaktibhai Patel by way of registered sale deed. That the names of Ashokkumar Ramabhai Patel and

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/28206/2017 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025

undefined

Govindbhai Bhaktibhai Patel were also mutated in the revenue record after the necessary procedure. That on 20/10/2008, the complainant i.e. the respondent no. 2 herein had filed a Criminal Judicial Complaint before Magistrate First Class, Mahesana being Inquiry Case No. 100 of 2008, which was subsequently registered as Criminal Case No. 8762 of 2010, inter alia alleging that the petitioner and other co-owners of the land had sold the subject land by way of registered sale deed by forging the signature of the respondent no. 2 in the year 2002. The Ld. Addl. Sr. Civil Judge and Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahesana vide order dated 23.06.2016 was pleased to dismiss the said Criminal Complaint for want of prosecution under section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2.2. That the complainant i.e. the respondent no.2 has lodged the impugned F.I.R. being C.R.No..I-152 of 2017 before Langhnaj Police Station making the allegation that by forging signature of petitioner, complainant has sold the subject land by way of registered sale deed in the year 2002. Hence, present petition.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Kachchhi for the petitioner, learned APP Mr. Mehta for respondent State and learned advocate Mr.Acharya for respondent no.2 - complainant.

4. Seeking quashment of FIR, learned advocate Mr.Kachchhi for the petitioner would mainly argue that FIR is filed belatedly almost after 15 years of incident. He would further submit that reason for filing FIR belatedly given in para 8 of the FIR states that compromise talks were going on between the parties but did

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/28206/2017 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025

undefined

not yeild positive result and therefore, it appears that FIR is filed with oblique motive to pressurize the petitioner to enter into compromise with complainant. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not executant of sale deed on which alleged forged signature of complainant is made; even name of the petitioner is not appearing in sale deed, therefore, since petitioner is not part of executant of sale deed, he cannot be prosecuted for the offence under section 406, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 114 of IPC. It is submitted that on reading FIR, it appears that complainant has sold his share in land of Survey No.520 after obtaining Rs.1.50 lakhs, and thereafter in order to obtain more money, complainant has filed FIR.

4.1. It is further submitted that private complaint was filed in the year 2008 before the learned JMFC, Mehasana, however, same has been dismissed by learned JMFC, Mehasana on 23.06.2016, yet the complainant waited for one year to file FIR, therefore, there is long delay in filing FIR which itself put suspicion on genunuity of FIR.

4.2. It is also submitted that it is essentially civil dispute and complainant has tried to give color of criminality by filing FIR.

4.3. In aforesaid premises, it is submitted to allow the petition as according to learned advocate for the petitioner, FIR is nothing but a tool to pressurize the petitioner to enter into compromise with complainant.

4.4. Thus learned advocate for the petitioner submitted to quash and set aside the FIR by allowing this petition.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/28206/2017 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025

undefined

5. Learned advocate Mr.Acharya for respondent no.2 - complainant would submit that FSL report obtained during investigation of offence indicates that signature of complainant on sale deed has been forged by the petitioner, which is sufficient to establish prima facie case against the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that the petition may not be entertained since investigation is at nascent stage. These are arguments made to dismiss the petition.

6. Learned APP for respondent - State referred to judgment in the case of Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya vs Anand Athabhai Chaudhari [(2022) 15 SCC 228] to meet with argument that FIR is filed belatedly and submitted that filing of FIR belatedly can be good defense in trial but cannot be main reason to quash FIR. It is submitted that Court should not exercise discretion at this juncture as unimpeachable evidence in form of FSL indicates that signature of complainant on sale deed has been made by the petitioner, therefore, prima facie, it appears that forged signature has been made by the petitioner, as such he is involved in commission of offence.

6.1. In view of above, learned APP submitted to no exercise extra-ordinary discretion in favour of the petitioner and dismiss the petition.

7. After hearing, learned advocates for the parties, and considering documents on record, more particularly, FSL report tendered by learned APP what could be noticed that FSL report establish that signature of the complainant on sale deed has been made by the petitioner. This document hold evidentiary

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/28206/2017 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025

undefined

value till put to question during trial and it is sufficient to discard case of the petitioner. At this stage, FSL report is found to be unimpeachable document prima facie establishing guilt of the petitioner.

8. Moreover, what could be noticed that investigation is at nascent stage and petition is filed at the stage of filing fIR and petitioner is seeking quashment of FIR. It is settled principle of law that power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power and same has to be exercised sparingly in appropriate case. The Court should not embark upon inquiry to find out that allegations levelled in the FIR are false and frivolous. The Court has to take FIR on its face value and decide the quashing petition.

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:-

"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 justified in embarking upon an enquiry 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."

10. In the case of Mahendra K.C. v/s. State of Karnataka [(2022) 2 SCC 129], Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under :-

"16..... the test to be applied is wither the allegations in the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/28206/2017 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025

undefined

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 trial."

11. Since initial stage, where cognizable offence is disclosed in FIR, whether investigation can be thwarted by exercising inherent power under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 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."

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/28206/2017 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025

undefined

12. Applying aforesaid principles, prima facie case is established against the petitioner.

13. Another argument of learned advocate for the petitioner that FIR is filed belatedly, however, in view of finding of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya (supra), it cannot be main reason to quash the FIR more particularly, evidence in the form of FSL report indicate that signature of complainant has been made by petitioner in sale deed. Para 34 of the judgment in the case Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya (supra) reads as under :-

"34. Even otherwise, on the ground of delay in lodging FIR / complaint, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The aspect of delay is required to be considered during the trial and during the trial when the complainant is examined on oath and a question is put to him/her on delay and he/she can very well explain the delay in his/her cross examination. But on the aforesaid ground, entire criminal proceeding cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."

14. One more argument canvassed by learned advocate for the petitioner that private complaint was dismissed and filing of FIR would be double jeopardize. I fail to countenance such argument. Private complaint was dismissed on technical ground that complainant did not remain present and that would not help the petitioner to quash FIR at this stage. Thus, the petitioner has failed to make out case to exercise discretion in his favour.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/28206/2017 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025

undefined

15. At this stage, I find some unusual activity on the part of the complainant as well as completely lack of application of mind on the part of Investigating Officer. Investigation is going on, yet complainant has filed RTI application before the Investigating Officer to obtain FSL report and Investigating Officer without understanding fact that until charge-sheet is filed, this papers cannot be supplied under RTI, claiming privilege under section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act granted access of the document collected during investigation to the complainant by way of giving copy to complainant. This Court finds that it is condemnable act on the part of Investigating Officer as well as complainant. Though this Court found it fit to quantify cost upon them at first blush, but refrain from it in facts and circumstances of the case.

16. In view of above, the petition stands dismissed. Notice is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier, if any, stands vacated.

(J. C. DOSHI,J)

17. After dictating the order, one more request is made by learned advocate for the petitioner to extend interim relief granted by this Court for period of four weeks. I find no substance in such argument as petitioner is involved in forging signature of the complainant. Request is rejected.

(J. C. DOSHI,J) SATISH