Minesh Umedbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat
2025 Latest Caselaw 6729 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Minesh Umedbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 18 September, 2025

                                                                                                                NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/CR.MA/32607/2016                                    ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025

                                                                                                                undefined




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                             R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
                                            FIR/ORDER) NO. 32607 of 2016

                                                        With
                                     R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 32603 of 2016
                       ==========================================================
                                                        MINESH UMEDBHAI PATEL
                                                                 Versus
                                                        STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR CHINMAY M GANDHI(3979) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                       MR. SOAHAM JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                       ==========================================================
                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

                                                            Date : 18/09/2025

                                                             ORAL ORDER

1. By way of these applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being II- 3318 of 2016 and FIR being II-3316 of 2016, both registered with Vejalpur Police Station.

2. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner, learned APP for the respondent-state. Though served, none appeared for the respondent No.2.

3. Shorn of non-essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the lis in hand is adumbrated, thus: the complainant - Sajedaben lodged the impugned FIR dated 28.11.2016 alleging that around 1.30 p.m., when she visited the disputed site behind Sonal Cinema (now Vinayak Polypack), she noticed the petitioner removing buffaloes tied at the cowshed and clearing huts and grass from the land for business purposes. It was further alleged that when she and one Navsad attempted to enter the site, the petitioner, along with his

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/32607/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025

undefined

uncle, restrained her, hurled abuses, and pushed her to the ground. She also averred that the petitioner took photographs and mobile video recordings with an oblique motive to fabricate evidence. Significantly, however, on the very same day, at about 1.00 p.m., the petitioner himself had lodged a complaint before Vejalpur Police Station alleging that while cleaning the compound with the help of labourers, he was obstructed, abused, and threatened by the complainant and her associates, necessitating police intervention.

3. The record further reveals that the controversy essentially pertains to a small portion of land abutting Sonal Cinema, in respect of which parallel civil proceedings are pending between the parties. Civil Suit No.155/2009, instituted by the complainant, as also Civil Suit No.238/2009 filed by the petitioner seeking removal of encroachment, are sub judice. It also transpires that the complainant's husband, one Nazir Vora, is allegedly a habitual litigant with a chequered history of criminal antecedents, against whom multiple complaints have been lodged at Vejalpur Police Station, some culminating in "B" summary orders. Pertinently, another FIR was filed by the complainant just a day prior to the registration of the present complaint.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the impugned FIR is a classic instance of malicious prosecution, instituted with a view to pressurize the petitioner in the ongoing civil dispute over possession of the disputed land. It was urged that the allegations are vague, inherently improbable, and in any event, constitute at best a civil dispute dressed up in criminal colours. Reliance was placed on the celebrated judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1)

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/32607/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025

undefined

SCC 335, to contend that the FIR falls squarely within the illustrative categories warranting interference under Section 482 of the Code.

5. Per contra, learned APP for the respondent-State opposed the petition, contending that the allegations prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offences and that the investigation ought not to be interdicted at this nascent stage. It was submitted that the truth or falsity of the allegations can only be tested during trial.

6. Having considered the rival submissions, and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court finds substantial force in the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner. The admitted position that civil proceedings are already pending between the parties over the very same parcel of land, coupled with the fact that the complainant had himself lodged a complaint prior in point of time on the same day, prima facie indicates that the impugned FIR is nothing but a retaliatory counterblast. The allegations are essentially rooted in a private civil dispute and do not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged. In absence whereof, the very foundation of the accusations crumbles.

7. It would be apposite to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein, in Paragraph 102, it is held as under:

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Ch. XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/32607/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025

undefined

this court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Art. 226 or the inherent powers under sec. 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 sec. 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of sec. 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted 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 accused.

(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 sec. 155(2) of the Code.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/32607/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025

undefined

(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."

8. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the impugned proceedings would amount to nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

9. Resultantly, the petitions succeeds and are accordingly allowed. The impugned FIR being II-3318 of 2016 and FIR being II-3316 of 2016 registered with Vejalpur Police Station, together with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.

(J. C. DOSHI,J) MANISH MISHRA