Gujarat High Court
Navinchandra Bhailalbhai Bhatt vs State Of Gujarat on 3 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1179/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 1179 of 2014
==========================================================
NAVINCHANDRA BHAILALBHAI BHATT & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
HL PATEL ADVOCATES(2034) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR CHINTAN DAVE APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 03/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1 By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure (for short "CrPC), petitioners prayed
following reliefs:
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quash and
set aside F.I.R. being C.R. No.I-37 of 2014 registered
at Karjan Police Station, Vadodara (Rural) (at
ANNEXURE-A hereto) as well as all consequential
proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid F.I.R.;
(B) During pendency and final disposal of the present
petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay
further proceedings/ investigation of F.I.R. being C.R.
No.I-37 of 2014 registered at Karjan Police Station,
Vadodara (Rural) (at ANNEXURE-A hereto);
(C) Pass any such other and/or further orders that
may be thought just and proper, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case;"
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1179/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
2 The brief facts of the case are as under:
2.1 One Ambalalbhai Bhatt, common ancestor, was
survived by two sons namely, Ratilalbhai and
Ramanlalbhai as well as three daughters, namely,
Radhaben, Savitaben and Lakshmiben. The complainant
is the son of late Ratilalbhai. He, along with Manjulaben
and Shardaben, are heirs of the deceased Ratilalbhai.
Another son of deceased Ambalalbhai's late Ramanlalbhai,
he is survived by late Bhailalbhai, further survived by his
two sons namely, Navinbhai and Madhusudanbhai and
daughter Kapilaben. Navinbhai and Madhusudanbhai are
the accused nos.1 and 2 in the FIR. Ambalalbhai was
holding ancestral land in Village: Chorbhuj as well as
Samlod. According to the FIR, the land bearing Block No.
45 and 3585 of Khata No. 140 belongs to late
Ambalalbhai. However, the accused nos.1 and 6, namely,
Navinchandra Bhailalbhai Bhatt and Talati-cum-Mantri
Narsitsinh Mavsinh Parmar, fabricated and concocted the
Sammati-Patrak of the complainant and witness
Manjulaben, also false the signature on the Notice under
Section 135(D) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, got
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1179/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
mutated the aforesaid land vide Revenue Entry No.1284
dated 13th September, 1983 and subsequent Revenue
Entry No.1340 dated 13th July, 1984 in favor of accused
nos.2 to 5, have taken away and grabbed the land where
the complainant has undivided share.
2.2 With the aforesaid allegation, FIR bearing CR No. I-37 of
2014 was filed with the Karjan Police Station, Vadodara
(Rural), on 14th February, 2014 for the offence punishable
under Sections 406,420,461,467,468,471 and 120(B) of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( for short "IPC"). Hence, this
petition at the instance of accused nos.1 to 5.
3 At the outset, the learned advocate Mr. P. P. Majmudar,
appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner
no.2, Rakshaben Madhusudanben Bhatt, has passed away
long back ago. Mr. P. P. Majmudar, the learned advocate
for the petitioner, submits that the FIR is filed after gross
delay of 30 years without making any explanation of the
delay. He further submits that the complainant has filed
the FIR after losing his contention on every front, i.e., on a
civil side as well as on revenue proceedings. He would
further submit that the criminal proceeding has been
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1179/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
misused by filing the FIR, which is nevertheless no more
than a civil dispute, if to be considered as gospel truth. Mr.
Majmudar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner,
apart from the afore narrated submissions, submits that
that the complainant has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 145 of
2012 before the learned Senior Civil Court, Bharuch for
declaration and permanent injunction against the
petitioner nos.1 and 2 for a land situated at Village:
Samlod, Taluka: Bharuch. The learned advocate Mr.
Majmudar further submits that in Paragraph No.4 of the
plaint, complainant specifically averred that his
grandfather has relinquished share from the land situated
at Village: Chorbhuj, (the land disputed in the FIR) by
executing the family settlement on 22nd May, 1980. The
learned advocate Mr. Majmudar, therefore, submits that
the pleading in the suit since binding to the complainant,
he cannot take a different or divergent view by filing the
FIR in question. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar further
submits that even the Regular Civil Suit No.145 of 2012,
essentially claiming relief for a land situated at Village:
Samlod, has been rejected by the learned Senior Civil
Court, Bharuch, by reasoned judgment and decree dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1179/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
21st August, 2015. The complainant carried the challenge
by way of first appeal and second appeal unsuccessfully.
He refers to the judgment and decrees placed on record
with additional affidavit. Another claim of the learned
advocate Mr. Majmudar that the petitioner even lost the
RTS proceeding up to the SSRD. He refers to Annexure-I,
order passed by the Deputy Collector in RTS Appeal No.
132/2010, which too, was filed by the complainant, has
been declined by the Deputy Collector, to intervene with
examine the correctness of the Revenue Entry No.1284.
Reference to page no.123 of the compilation has been made
to submit that that the Collector, Vadodara has confirmed
the order passed by the Deputy Collector in a proceeding
under Section 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules.
He further submits that revision to the said Deputy
Collector failed to attain any success for the complainant
and ultimately, by a range of division, it is confirmed that
the Revenue Entry No.1284 mutated in favor of the
petitioner is correct, genuine and in accordance with law.
4 Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar in premise of the
aforesaid aspect submits that the FIR is nothing but a
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1179/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
frivolous and malicious attempt on the part of the
complainant to give a color of criminal offence to the civil
dispute, which the complainant lost at every stage.
5 Upon above submissions, the learned advocate Mr.
Majmudar, calling the assistance from the judgment in the
case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal [1992 Suppl (1) SCC
335], submits that filing of the FIR is abuse of process of
law and hence, a request to the Court to pass the order for
quashing the FIR.
6 Per contra, the learned advocate Mr. Maharshi Patel for HL
Patel Advocates Associates, vehemently objecting to
arguments of the learned advocate for the petitioner, drawn
the attention of this Court towards Page No.99 and
submits that the FSL Report made by the Director,
Forensic Science Laboratory, addressed to S.P., Vadodara
(Rural), opines that in a Sammati-Patrak and Jawab to
Notice No.1284 dated 5th September, 1983, the signature of
Harshadbhai Ratilalbhai Bhatt is not matching with the
usual and natural signature and thus, the FSL Report,
prima facie, indicates that something fishy and wrong to
place at the time of posting Revenue Entry No.1284. He,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1179/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
further submits that the FSL Report, having a presumption
of truth showcase that the Revenue Entry No.1284 was
mutated by the false and concocted Samanti-Jawab for as
much for signature on Notice under Section 135(D) of the
Bombay Land Revenue Code. Thus, he submits that FIR
which is sought to be quashed at threshold should not be
done by allowing this petition. Accordingly, he submits to
dismiss this petition.
7 In addition to the aforesaid arguments and while adopting
the same, the learned APP Mr. Chintan Dave, refers to page
no.173 that the learned Senior Civil Court discuss about
the document produced at Exhibit-78 in a suit proceeding,
and submits that the learned Senior Civil Judge has not
touched the legality and veracity of the FIR in question and
left it to decision of the appropriate proceeding, and
therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, he submits that
the petitioner cannot claim any benefit of the judgment
delivered in a civil proceeding in his favor confirmed to the
High Court in second appeal.
8 Long and extensive arguments of the learned advocate for
both the sides are heard. Anxious consideration has been
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1179/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
paid to the slew of the document produced on record.
9 The FIR spells as under:
9.1 The incident is of 1983, precisely on 13 th September,
1983, has been reported on 14th February, 2014. Reading
of the FIR discloses no explanation on the gross delay of
more than 30 years.
9.2 The complainant Mr. Harshadbhai Ratilalbhai Bhatt
alleges that the accused nos.1 and 6 in connivance with
each other have taken away land of the complainant by
posting false Revenue Entry No.1284, forging the
signature of him and his sister Manjulaben on Sammati-
Patrak as well as on Notice under Section 135(D). No such
contention was taken by the complainant in any previous
proceedings. Manjulaben, the sister of the complainant,
till date, remained silent on the issue that her signature
has been fabricated and concocted. The FIR is totally
silent on the aspect of previous litigation between the
parties wherein the complainant lost.
10 After taking into the aforesaid aspect, let jump to the
pleading averred by the complainant in the Regular Civil
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1179/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
Suit No.145 of 2012. Paragraph No.4 in the plaint is
material to the dispute. It is in vernacular tongue, but the
closest translation of the said in English language reads as
under:
"(4) On 22/05/1980, a partition agreement was
executed between both respondents at Chorbhuj,
Taluka: Karjan, in the presence of the plaintiff's
father. As per the agreement, the plaintiff's father
relinquished his rights over the land, houses, cattle-
shed situated at Chorbhuj, Taluka: Karjan, District:
Vadodara, which were registered in the name of
Ambalal Mahashankar, the father of Ratilal Ambalal,
i.e. the plaintiff's grandfather. Similarly, the plaintiff's
father relinquished his rights in favor of the present
respondent in respect of the joint property located at
Chorbhuj, which was held in the name of the
respondent's father.
Likewise, the respondents relinquished their rights
and claims in favor of the plaintiffs' father over the
property situated at Samlod, Taluka & District:
Bharuch, which was jointly owned by the plaintiff's
father and the respondents' father; and have agreed
to appear before Talati and provide a written
undertaking of relinquishment, as and when
required."
11 Learned advocate Mr. Maharshi Patel, appearing for the
complainant, could not point out any different propositions
then what stated herein above. Sections 20 and 21 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 refer to admissions by person.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1179/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
The statute says that they are relevant and may be proved
as against the person who makes them.
12 The aforesaid admission on the part of the complainant
herein made prior in point of time in the FIR being
suppressed in the FIR, cling the entire issue. After reading
the aforesaid admission on the part of the complainant, no
issue remains to decide except to quash the FIR found it to
be malicious and vexatious. It is admitted position that the
revenue proceeding started by the complainant against the
petitioner prior to filing of the FIR resulted against the
complainant. Posteriorly, all subsequent orders i.e., order
passed by the Collector, Vadodara and SSRD does not
found favor of the complainant. Thus, this Court, without
any hesitation, reaches to the conclusion that the FIR is a
last attempt on the part of the complainant after losing all
battles. The petition deserves consideration.
13 At this juncture, this Court may refer to the Order passed
by the Coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing the
rule on 10th April, 2014:
"Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the
averments in the civil suit instituted by the complainant
admitting the relinquishment of the right in the property
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1179/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
by his grand-father in respect of which the FIR is filed
disputing such relinquishment. It is argued that thus in
two different documents, contradictory stand is taken and
the FIRe field of electronic service delivery. E-Governance
is the logical
next step in the use of ICT in s is misuse of process of law.
It is argued that after 30 years, such frivolous dispute is
sought to be raised in the FIR.
Rule. Learned APP waives service. Ad-interm relief in
terms of Paragraph-23(B) is granted.
Direct Service for rest is permitted."
14 The contention alleviated by the learned advocate Mr.
Maharshi Patel, duly supported by the learned APP Mr.
Chintan Dave, that the Forensic Science Laboratory has
opined that the signature of the Sammati-Patrak is not
matching with the natural signature of the complainant
which, prima facie, establish the case of the forgery,
cheating and creating concocted documents. Apt to note
that this FSL Report cannot have any overriding effect on
the solemn admission made by the complainant in a civil
proceeding by way of pleading. Apart from that the
evidentiary value of the FSL Report found to be secondary
in character and cannot be a sole reason to believe, in
peculiar facts of this case that the signature of the
complainant was concocted. The peculiar facts of this case
that the complainant did not raise the dispute for more
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1179/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
than 30 years.
15 In the premises of the aforesaid reasons, this Court refers
to the judgment in the case of State of Haryana Vs.
Bhajanlal (supra), whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court
summed up the position of law as under:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of
the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series
of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary
power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and
reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases
by way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it
may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list
of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised.
(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 in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR
do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1179/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the
purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontrovered allegations made in the FIR
or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the deceased.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR 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 bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings 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 mala fide 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."
16 Applying the finding nos. 1, 3 and 7 of the aforesaid
judgment, this petition deserves consideration.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1179/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
17 In the result, the petition is allowed. Impugned FIR being
CR No. I-37 of 2014 and all consequential proceedings
arise from the said FIR qua the petitioners is hereby
quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. Direct
service is permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
JIGAR
