Back
2020 Supreme(Guj) 28
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.C. RAO, J.
Yashpal Mahendrasinh Jadeja – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat and Others – Respondents
Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 7385, 13277 of 2015, Special Criminal Application No. 2535 of 2015
Decided On : 10-01-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Viral K. Shah.
For the Respondent: Ms. C.M. Shah.
Point of Law:
In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.
Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing and setting aside the FIR. Respondent No. 2 is the original complainant and filed the complaint inter alia alleging that the land bearing Revenue Survey No. 87, admeasuring 9 Acres, 11 Gunthas situated at a village, is of the joint ownership of the complainant and his family members. It is further alleged that since the complainant wanted to sell out the said land he approached estate broker of his village and in turn contacted one another broker who knew petitioner. It is further alleged that an agreement for sale was executed in favour of the said through the land brokers and it was agreed to sell the land to him at the rate per bigha and in all price was fixed for total for 23.03 bighas. It is further alleged that the talk was taken place to sell only 16 bighas of the land. Thereafter, an Agreement to Sale was executed. The agreed terms were contained in the said agreement to sale and that the payments were also made according to the recital of the said agreement to sale. Held – After considering the rival submissions and considering the judgments of the Apex Court, it is of the view that when the matter is compromised between the parties and there was a civil litigation between the parties prior to the complaint and there is an amicable settlement between the parties – Petition allowed. (Para 7)
Facts of the Case:
It is alleged that since the complainant wanted to sell out the said land he approached estate broker of his village and in turn contacted one another broker who knew petitioner. It is further alleged that an agreement for sale was executed in favour of the said through the land brokers and it was agreed to sell the land to him at the rate per bigha and in all price was fixed for total for 23.03 bighas.
Finding of the Court:
It is of the view that when the matter is compromised between the parties and there was a civil litigation between the parties prior to the complaint and there is an amicable settlement between the parties.
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
A.C. RAO, J.
1. The present petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing and setting aside the FIR dated 13.04.2015 lodged by the respondent No. 2-original complainant being I-C.R. No. 80 of 2015 registered before Panch “B” Division Police Station, Jamnagar for the offences punishable under Sections 386 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Since all the three captioned petitions arise out of the common FIR, the same are heard and decided analogously by common judgment.
2. The brief facts leading to the present petitions are as under:
2.1 The respondent No. 2-Mahendrabhai Samatbhai Gorsani is the original complainant and filed the complaint on 13.04.2015 inter alia alleging that the land bearing Revenue Survey No. 87, admeasuring 9 Acres, 11 Gunthas situated at village Kansumra, Ta. Dist. Jamnagar, is of the joint ownership of the complainant and his family members.
2.2 It is further alleged that since the complainant wanted to sell out the said land he approached estate broker of his village namely Osmanbhai Hasambhai Khira and in turn contacted one another broker namely Rameshbhai Arjanbhai Chavda who knew Pradeepsinh Nikulsinh Sarvaiya (petitioner in Cr. MA No. 13277 of 2015). It is further alleged that an agreement for sale was executed in favour of the said Pradeepsinh through the land brokers and it was agreed to sell the land to him at the rate of 2,02,11,000/- per bigha and in all price was fixed for total Rs. 32,33,76,000/- for 23.03 bighas. It is further alleged that the talk was taken place to sell only 16 bighas of the land. Thereafter, on 13.06.2014 an Agreement to Sale was executed. The agreed terms were contained in the said agreement to sale and that the payments were also made according to the recital of the said agreement to sale.
2.3 It is further alleged that the complainant later came to realize that the registered agreement to sale was qua the entire land in question when it was specifically agreed that only 16 bighas were to be sold. However, as there were differences of opinion as regards the price of the land, both the sides had filed caveat applications as well as civil suits in the civil courts being Special Civil Suit No. 116 of 2014.
2.4 It is further alleged by the complainant that on 30.01.2015 at about 9.45 p.m. when he was at his residence he received a phone call from his nephew and was informed that some persons came on their land to take possession and therefore, the complainant proceeded to his land alongwith his two nephews. When they reached their field at about 10.15 p.m. they found that one Yashpalsinh Mahendrasinh Jadeja (petitioner in Cr. MA No. 7385 of 2015), Pradip Bhagwanji Makwana, Firdozkhan Osmankhan Pathan and other unknown persons were present there and were threatening to the persons working in the field and were asking to vacate the premises. It is further alleged that the complainant informed them that he is the owner of the said land and then Yashpalsinh told to the complainant that he has purchased his land from Pradeepsinh and he is the owner of the land now. The petitioner alongwith other accused threatened the complainant with dire consequences and driven out the complainant from the land by issuing threat. As such the petitioners tried to dis-possess him from the property in question.
3. It is contended by the learned advocate Mr. Viral K. Shah appearing for the petitioner that the civil suit referred to above, is compromised and decree is also passed in the said suit. The petitioner has also produced the compromise purshis as well as the order of the lower court alongwith the decree. It is contended that there is a compromise between the parties and the dispute is of the civil nature. Under the circumstances, no substantive purpose would survive if the litigation is continued but, it would be a wastage of time.
4. The learned advocate appearing for the heirs of the respondent No. 2 in Special Criminal Application N
