2017 Supreme(Guj) 1750

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
B.N. KARIA, J.
Vasudevbhai Kedarmal Agrawal & Ors. - Applicants
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Ors. - Respondents
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 2984 of 2011
Decided On : 20-06-2017

Headnote:

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -Section 482 -Indian Penal Code -Sections 379, 427,114 -Respondent no.2/complainant lodged the impugned complaint on wherein it is alleged that the complainant kept two of land in the year 1985 by executing an agreement to sell from the land owner by giving consideration amount of Rs. 4,000/-. It is further alleged that immediately, by executing a supplementary agreement, the complainant got possession of the land and paid Rs. 36,000/- and as per the condition enshrined in the agreement to sell, the original land owner was required to get the land converted into Non Agricultural and original owner would execute the document. The said agreement was agreed to be in force for a period of 12 months. It was decided that until the land is converted into Non agricultural, the said agreement would continue, as the complainant was not a farmer, and therefore, it was not possible for him to execute the document in his name and thereby, the agreement to sell came to be registered, but the supplementary agreement was not registered. Thereafter, one factory came to be started on the said land and for that purpose, one water tank was also erected/constructed as well as one platform and one shed was also erected and on the road side, one cement godown was also constructed wherein the complainant was keeping cement and raw materials. At a distance of about 25 feet from godown, the complainant also erected six rooms in a row and the doors and windows were also installed therein and other construction was completed on the said land as well as one hydraulic machine was also installed on the site. It is also alleged in the complaint that the factory of the complainant was being looked after by one, who remained at the site for a period of about two to three years and two other ladies, namely, and, resident, were also residing at the said place. That, the said factory was in operation for four months and the remaining section was in operation and thereafter, the said factory was closed down.complainant also filed a civil suit and also deployed security personnel to keep watch over his property. Upon vacation of stay in the said proceedings and when no interim relief was granted in his favour; even by the Honble High Court, the watchman of the complainant informed him telephonically that one person has encroached upon his land with JCB machine and he was immediately called at the site and while reaching there, he found that rooms were demolished and scrap was also thrown outside the plot and at that time, the complainant learnt that the said act was committed by the applicants and after some days, on account of feeling fear, the security personnel deployed by the complainant had also left the place and one display board was found to be installed at the site and that is how the present complaint has been lodged -Held Considering the facts of this case, the dispute involved is of a civil nature. Criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such type of transactions. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings, if in its view, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice, and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case. court is of the opinion that it would be unfair and/or contrary to continue with criminal proceedings and/or continuation of the criminal would cause abuse the process of law, despite the fact that the applicants have not participated in any of the transactions in respect of the land in dispute with the respondent no.2-complainant, or have not played any role in committing the offence; as alleged in the complaint, as argued by learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2. To secure the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to put to end to the impugned criminal proceedings, qua the present applicants herein. In view of the above, this Criminal Misc. Application is hereby allowed. Complaint, being C.R. No. I- 23 of 2011 registered with Police Station, is hereby quashed and set aside with all consequential proceedings, qua the applicants. Needless to mention that the observations drawn by this Court would not in any way influence the trial qua other accused persons.. Rule is made absolute to the afore stated extent. Ad-interim relief stands confirmed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.