Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Sandeep N. Bhatt, J.
Sanjivbhai Natvarlal Chandaliya – Applicant
versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Criminal Misc. Application (for Quashing & set aside FIR/Order) No.7476 of 2021 with R/Criminal Misc. Application No.10671 of 2020 with R/Criminal Misc. Application No.8523 of 2020
Decided on 10.10.2023

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Applicant Nos.1, 2, 3:Mr. Rathin P. Raval (5013), Advocate
For the Respondent No.2:Ms. Shivangi Vyas, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Chintan Dave, APP

IMPORTANT POINT
Inordinate delay in filing of criminal proceeding amounts to abuse of process of law.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 406, 420 and 120B – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 468 and 482 – Criminal breach of trust, cheating and conspiracy – Present dispute is entirely with respect of property and more particularly, buying and selling thereof – Complainant has filed impugned FIRs after a delay of 14 years without any proper justification for delay – Considering Section 468 of Code, continuation of present proceedings pursuant to impugned FIRs will amount to abuse of process of law – This is a fit case to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of Code by quashing impugned FIRs, as complainant has tried to give colour of criminal nature to essentially a dispute of civil nature – Even otherwise, ingredients of sections invoked are not satisfied in facts of present case, whereby registered sale deed is sought to be challenged by way of criminal proceedings without resorting to any remedy of civil proceeding – Impugned FIRs quashed. (Paras 9, 12, 15, 18 and 19)
Result: Criminal Misc. Applications allowed.

ORDER (ORAL)

These applications are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the Code’ for short) praying for quashing and setting aside the FIR being C.R. No. 11185002201172 of 2020, 1118500220072 of 2020 and 11185002200674 of 2020 registered with Dwarka Police Station, Devbhumi Dwarka and all consequential proceedings, under Sections 406, 420 and 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code.

2. As common question of facts and law are involved in all these petitions, at the request of learned advocates for the parties, they are heard together and disposed of by this common oral order.

3. The complainant filed the impugned complaints with the allegation that the applicants have cheated the complainant and transferred their land in their name using the papers given for title clear purpose as the applicant no.1 was an advocate.

4. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

5. Learned advocate Mr.Raval for the applicants has submitted that the complainant lodged the impugned FIRs after more than 14 years i.e. the sale deeds were executed in the year 2006 and the FIRs are filed in the year 2020, for which there is no explanation coming forth; that the dispute is of civil nature for which criminal machinery is being used; that there is a presumption that the registered sale deed is a genuine document. He submitted that these applications are filed after filing of the chargesheet and notice is issued. Relying on the judgments in the cases of Chanchalpati Vs. State of West Bengal in Criminal Appeal No.1592 of 2023 dated 18.5.2023, Kunti V/s State of UP reported in (2023) 6 SCC 109 and in the case of Abhishek V/s State of Mahdya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.1457 of 2015 dated 31.8.2023 of the Hon’ble Apex Court, learned advocate Mr. Raval has prayed to allow these applications.

6. Per Contra, learned advocate Ms.Shah for respondent no.2 has submitted that the forefathers of the respondent no.2 were the original owners of the land and it was given on lease to a ACC company, however, mistakenly in the revenue record, instead of names of forefathers of the respondent no.2, the name of the company was mutated. The said work of ratification of the mistake was handed to the applicant no.1, however, as the same was not done, the respondent no.2 independently carried out the same; that after the said entry was ratified, the applicants gave public notice regarding the purchase of the land and therefore the respondent no.2 came to know that the applicants have misused the thumb impressions of his forefathers and fraudulently transferred the land in their name; that the respondent no.2 has initiated the proceedings regarding the correction in the revenue record. On the aspect of delay, she submitted that after the order of ratification was passed in the year 2020, the public notice was issued by the applicants and therefore the applicants came to know about the fraud committed and therefore there is no delay in filing the impugned FIRs. She further submitted that civil suit was filed after lodgment of the impugned FIRs, however, when the applicants are involved in other offences with same modus operandi, the motive of the applicants can be clearly deduced by such acts, and the contention of the applicants that the dispute is of civil nature will not sustain as the applicants have duped agricultural lands of various other villages. She, therefore, submitted, these applications are required to be dismissed as there is prima facie case against the applicants.

7. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and also perused the material on record. It transpires that the FIRs are filed against the present applicants under the provisions of Sections 406, 420, 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code, whereby the entire family members of the applicant no.1 are sought to be impleaded. The applicant no.1 was 65 years old at the time of filing of the present application and the applicant no.3 was 86 years old. Even on bare reading of the comp