Parulben Hemantbhai Vaidya vs State Of Gujarat
2025 Latest Caselaw 6890 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Parulben Hemantbhai Vaidya vs State Of Gujarat on 24 September, 2025

                                                                                                         NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/CR.MA/2453/2014                               ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025

                                                                                                          undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                            R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
                                          FIR/ORDER) NO. 2453 of 2014

                       ==========================================================
                                           PARULBEN HEMANTBHAI VAIDYA & ANR.
                                                         Versus
                                                STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR HARNISH V DARJI(3705) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
                       MR. BK. RAJ(3794) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                       MR. CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

                                                        Date : 24/09/2025

                                                         ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners, learned Advocate for the private respondent, and the learned APP for the respondent- State.

2. The order of issuance of process for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 404, 403, 418, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471, 120B, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code has been assailed in the present petition.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioners has strenuously contended that the petitioner and the private respondent are real sisters. It is urged that after the petitioner obtained divorce from her husband, she resided with her mother, Hasumatiben, who, during her lifetime, executed a duly registered Will on 25.02.2010 in the presence of two attesting witnesses, thereby bequeathing her properties exclusively in favour of the petitioner.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/2453/2014 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025

undefined

3.1. It is further submitted that upon the demise of her mother, the petitioner preferred an application (Annexure-C) before the Revenue Officer seeking mutation of her name in the revenue records on the strength of the aforesaid registered Will, accompanied by a supporting affidavit.

3.2. Learned Advocate for the petitioners urged that under a misconception of law, the petitioner bona fide believed that since her deceased mother had executed a valid Will excluding the private respondent and bequeathing her immovable properties solely in her favour, there would be no other heir to the estate. Consequently, the petitioner did not mention the name of the private respondent while filing the mutation application.

3.3. It is canvassed that such omission, at the highest, may amount to furnishing incomplete particulars before the Revenue Authority, but by no means can it be stretched to constitute offences of forgery, fabrication, or criminal conspiracy, as alleged. The petitioner has not forged any document nor fabricated any record; she has only acted upon the testamentary instrument of her late mother, which was duly registered.

3.4. Learned Advocate has also drawn attention to subsequent proceedings, wherein the petitioner instituted probate proceedings before the competent Civil Court. The private respondent entered objections thereto, upon which the matter stood converted into a Regular Civil Suit. Both parties have adduced evidence in those proceedings. Hence, the dispute is essentially of civil complexion, and continuation of criminal prosecution would amount to an abuse of process of law.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/2453/2014 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025

undefined

3.5. On the aforesaid premises, learned Advocate for the petitioner has urged that the present petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order of issuance of process be quashed and set aside.

4. Per contra, learned Advocate appearing for the private respondent has vehemently opposed the petition. It is urged that the petitioner and the private respondent being real sisters, the petitioner, while preferring an application before the Revenue Authority for mutation of her name on the basis of the Will, was under a bounden duty to disclose the existence of other legal heirs, namely, the private respondent. However, the petitioner deliberately suppressed such material fact with an oblique motive of usurping the disputed property.

4.1. It is further submitted that in the RTS proceedings, the aforesaid omission came to the fore, and the competent authority, upon due consideration, has already scrutinised and questioned the mutation entry effected in favour of the petitioner. This itself reflects the mala fides on the part of the petitioner in attempting to exclude the rightful heir.

4.2. Learned counsel would therefore submit that, in the conspectus of these circumstances, the learned Trial Court has rightly issued process, and the contentions sought to be raised by the petitioner are matters to be adjudicated during the course of trial upon appreciation of evidence.

4.3. On the aforesaid premises, learned Advocate for the private respondent has prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/2453/2014 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025

undefined

5. Learned APP has joined the submissions canvassed by the learned Advocate for the private respondent and prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

6. I have heard learned advocate for both the sides as well perused the relevant records.

7. Noticeably, Hasumatiben, the mother of both the petitioner and the private respondent, executed a duly registered Will on 25.02.2010 before the Sub-Registrar's office, whereby she bequeathed her property, being Block No. 45/B, Darshan Society, Sadhnanagar, Karelibaugh, exclusively in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner preferred an application before the Revenue Authority, annexed as Annexure-C2, seeking mutation of her name in the revenue records, and in compliance with the requirement, filed an affidavit stating that Hasumatiben had left behind no heir other than the petitioner.

8. This affidavit is alleged to be the genesis of the present dispute and is projected as the root cause for the filing of the complaint. The private respondent initially sought to initiate police proceedings by moving applications before the concerned Police Station as well as the Police Commissioner, which did not fructify. Thereafter, she instituted a private complaint before the Court below. The learned Trial Court, in a rather facile manner, directed an inquiry under Section 202(1) of the Cr.P.C. and called for a report from the Investigating Officer. Upon receipt of such report, the learned Court, without undertaking any meaningful discussion as to how and in what manner the alleged offences were made out, proceeded to

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/2453/2014 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025

undefined

mechanically issue process.

9. A bare perusal of the impugned order, particularly at page 30, reveals that in a cryptic manner, within barely four lines, it was observed that as per the police report, offences appear to be made out, and on that singular basis, process was issued. Such an approach, shorn of judicial reasoning, is reflective of a patent non- application of mind and renders the order vulnerable. It is trite that issuance of process is an issue of considerable gravity, and a Magistrate is duty-bound to record satisfaction, even at a prima facie stage, that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are disclosed.

10. Moreover, it is not in dispute that parallel proceedings were simultaneously pending before the Civil Court. The petitioner had instituted probate proceedings which, upon contest by the private respondent, stood converted into a Regular Civil Suit. The Civil Court, after full-fledged adjudication, rendered findings in favour of the petitioner. This, by itself, demonstrates that the dispute partakes the character of a civil lis rather than a criminal transgression.

11. Viewed thus, the omission of the petitioner to mention the private respondent's name in the pedhinama affidavit, at the highest, may constitute non-disclosure of information before the Revenue Officer. However, to stretch the same so as to constitute grave offences under the Penal Code is not only legally unsustainable but also tantamounts to an abuse of the process of law.

12. 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/2453/2014 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025

undefined

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 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.

(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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/2453/2014 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025

undefined

(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."

13. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the impugned proceedings against the present petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of law and result in manifest injustice.

14. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned Guna Mukadma No.4031 of 2013 registered with Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara, as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the present petitioners, are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.

(J. C. DOSHI,J) MANISH MISHRA