SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Bela M. Trivedi, Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.
Parshottam Shantilal Chaddarwalaa – Appellant
Versus
The State of Gujarat & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(s). 838 of 2011
Decided On : 13-05-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's observations about the case. (Para 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. court analysis on section 195 crpc. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. final conclusion of the judgment. (Para 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT :
PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.
1. The present criminal appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated October 7, 2009 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad rendered in Special Criminal Application No. 1690 of 2009, whereby the High Court dismissed the Special Criminal Application filed by the Petitioner herein.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent no.2 herein who, at the relevant time, was the Incharge Registrar, District Court, Bharuch, lodged a First Information Report (hereinafter, ‘FIR’) before the Bharuch City 'A' Division Police Station on 28th July, 2005 against the petitioner herein as well as two other accused persons alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 192 , 193, 196, 204, 209, 406, 420, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471, 473, 474, 499, 500, 120-B and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter ‘IPC’) which came to be registered vide I-C.R. No.170 of 2005. The allegation in the FIR is to the effect that on 27th March, 2003, the petitioner herein had instituted Special Civil Suit No.79 of 2003 in the capacity of power of attorney holder of the partners of a partnership firm namely, Narmada Finvest in the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch for recovery of Rs.5,45,052/- against one Kamlesh Kantilal Patel. The said firm consisted of one Jagjivan Shantilal Dalal, Pashiben Parsottam Chaddarwala and Viren Parsottam Chaddarwala as its partners. An application came to be made in the said suit proceedings seeking an order of attachment before judgment on which notice came to be issued. During the proceedings of the said suit, an out of court settlement was arrived at between the petitioner and the defendant of the suit namely, Kamlesh Kantilal Patel on 28th March, 2003 according to which the brother of the defendant Laksheshbhai Patel had undertaken to pay Rs.2,25,000/- towards settlement of the dispute. The said Laksheshbhai Patel handed over 15 cheques of Rs. 15,000/- each to the petitioner which were payable on the first day of each month with effect from 01st May. 2003. In view of the settlement dated 28th March, 2003 arrived at between the parties to the suit, on 02nd April, 2003, the petitioner tendered a withdrawal pursis seeking permission to withdraw the suit unconditionally. On the basis of the said application, the Trial Court made an endorsement on the last page of the plaint, and also on the application for interim injunction to the effect that the suit is withdrawn unconditionally. However, at the time of withdrawal of the suit, the deed of settlement was not produced in writing before the Court. As the suit was sought to be withdrawn unconditionally, as per the Rules, no decree was drawn and entry to that effect was made in the Rojkam. In view of the withdrawal of the suit, as per the provisions of the Civil Courts Manual, the documents of Special Civil Suit No.79 of 2003 were divided into four files viz. A, B, C and D and thereafter, the said files were despatched vide Outward Register No.215 of 2004 to the Record Office of the District Court, Bharuch on 04th May, 2004. The record of Special Civil Suit was thereafter lying in the custody of the co-accused Deputy Registrar-cum-Record Keeper, District Court, Bharuch.
3. The cheques which were handed over by Laksheshbhai Patel to the petitioner herein were presented for realisation and some of the cheques came to be dishonoured. The petitioner, therefore, instituted several complaints against the said Laksheshbhai under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 which later on came to be withdrawn by the petitioner. In the aforesaid FIR by respondent no.2 herein, it is al
Smuggling of gold – Cognizance of offence - Case squarely falls within the category of cases falling under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC as the offence is punishable under Section 193 IPC. Therefore, the....
(1) Any aggrieved person can alert court about commission of a crime committed with intent to mislead court or to scuttle proceedings pending before it.(2) If other offences are interwoven and insepa....
Petitioner has not been confined for illegal purpose amounting to commission of offence. As such, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the liberty granted to him by filing the complaint under Sect....
(1) Locus Standi to prefer SLP – Appeal by a private individual can be entertained, both sparingly and after due vigilance.(2) Contempt of lawful authority of Public Servants – Bar of prosecution – O....
The court clarified that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. limits cognizance of forgery only if it occurs after the document has been submitted in court.
(1) Perjury – Section 195(1)(b)(ii) read with Section 340(1), Cr.P.C. will only apply in respect of offences which are committed during the time when document concerned was custodia legis or in custo....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.