Back
2015 Supreme(Guj) 104
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.B.PARDIWALA, J.
MIYA IBRAHIM MEHMAND NADTA....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 137 of 2008
Decided On : 12/02/2015
MR A.D. SHAH, SR. COUNSEL with MR EKANT G AHUJA, ADVOCATE and MR KR RAVAL, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ZUBIN F BHARDA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS HANSA PUNANI, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a purely civil dispute should not be converted into a criminal offence, and the Civil Court should handle the dispute and disposal of the Civil Suit.
Headnote:
Sec. 482 - Quashing of FIR - Indian Penal Code - Sec. 181, 192, 193, 196, 384, 447, 427 r/w sec. 114 - The court discussed the various sections of the Indian Penal Code including Sec. 181, 192, 193, 196, 384, 447, 427 r/w sec. 114 and their applicability to the case. The court emphasized that the dispute pertained to the ownership of the disputed land and directed the Civil Court to take up the Special Civil Suit for hearing and disposal.
Fact of the Case:
A long drawn civil dispute culminated in various litigations including a Civil Suit for declaration of title. The accused sought to quash the FIR registered for offences under the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute was of a civil nature and should not be converted into a criminal offence. It directed the Civil Court to expedite the disposal of the Civil Suit and emphasized that the police involvement would be an abuse of the criminal machinery.
Issues: The main issue was whether the FIR deserved to be quashed and whether the dispute should be treated as a criminal offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dispute was purely civil in nature and directed the Civil Court to expedite the disposal of the Civil Suit. It emphasized that the police involvement would be an abuse of the criminal machinery.
Final Decision: The application to quash the FIR was allowed and the FIR was ordered to be quashed.
JUDGMENT :
1. A long drawn civil dispute which ultimately culminated in various litigations in the form of Revenue proceedings and a Civil Suit for declaration of title is sought to be given the colour of a criminal offence.
2. By this application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”) the applicant –original accused seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the First Information Report registered at Chikhli Police Station, District: Navsari vide C.R.No.I-166/2007 of the offence punishable under Sections 181, 192, 193, 196, 384, 447, 427 r/w sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It appears from the materials on record that on 4/8/2008 while admitting the petition, the following order was passed.
“Admittedly, the civil dispute arising out of the land in question for which the allegations have been made against the applicant of illegal trespassing on the land, on the basis of some fake documents, where the suit is filed, which is pending before the Principal Civil Judge, Gandevi Civil Court as Special Civil Suit No.11 of 2007.
On 7.1.2008, the Principal Civil Judge, Gandevi Civil Court made prima facie observations that though title is in the name of the defendant, prima facie possession is established by the plaintiff against which the private respondent has preferred an appeal, which is pending.
In the above circumstances, Rule returnable on th October, 2008.
Mr. K.T. Dave, learned APP, waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 –State and Mr. Zubin Bharda waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.2.
Interim relief with regard to the impugned FIR is hereby stayed till further order.”
Thus, since 2008 the proceedings have remained stayed.
4. The case of the respondent no.2 the first informant may be summarized as under:-
4.1 The first informant claims that he is the power of attorney holder of one Bai Hawaboo. Bai Hawaboo is the wife of Late Ismail Fakir Bala. It is the case of the first informant that he is residing along with his wife and two sons with his maternal aunt, namely, Hawaboo. The dispute pertains to an immovable property in the form of land bearing Block No.471/472 paiki. This land was owned by one Purshottambhai Ishwarbhai. The husband of Hawaboo, namely, Late Ismail Fakir Bala purchased the said parcel of land from Purshottambhai by way of a sale deed dated 31/8/1949. Hawaboo, the maternal aunt of the first informant has no issue.
4.2 It appears from the materials on record that on consolidation of the Block No.471 and 472, a new Survey Number was given being Survey No.713. Thus, the original block No.471/472 on consolidation became Survey No.713. The Survey No.713 admeasures 4 Hectors and 65 Gunthas. It also appears that during the life time of Ismail Bala, his sister, namely Khatija put forward a claim as regards her share in the property. A Regular Civil Suit No.34/1965 was filed in that regard for partition. The property was ultimately partitioned. Ismail Bala got 3/4th share in the property whereas his sister Khatija got 1/3rd share. It also appears that out of the 3/share derived by Ismail Bala he transferred 27 Gunthas of the said land in favour of one Mohammad Adam Bala by way of a sale deed through a Court Commissioner appointed by the Court. The transaction between late Ismail Bala and Mohammad Adam Bala resulted in the land being given Block Nos.713/1 and 713/2. The Revenue Survey no.713/2 remained with late Ismail which ultimately came to be inherited by his wife Hawaboo.
4.3 Mohammad Adam Bala is said to have executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the applicant-accused herein dated nd January, 2001. It is the case of the first informant that the disputed block bearing Block no.713 paiki 2 admeasuring 38 Hector is an agricultural land and is of the ownership of his maternal aunt, namely, Bai Hawaboo. It is his case that the accused had preferred an RTS Appeal No.37 of 2000 before the Collector, however, the s
