Manohar Mangharam Galani vs State Of Gujarat

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Guj) 26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Gita Gopi, J.
Manohar Mangharam Galani – Applicant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 10639, 10642, 10645, 10646, 10648 of 2019
Decided On : 16-01-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant : VMP Legal
For the Respondent: Mr. Dhawan Jayswal, APP

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226, 14, 136 – Indian Penal Code, 1973 – Sections 420, 114, 406 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482, 195 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Criminal cases – Quashed the order – Quashing the proceedings – Petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash and set aside complaints being – Held, In view of fact that matters would be stretching case beyond its bound, where Court has to be vigilant of fact that there would not be any proceedings, since no complainants are available or found by investigating officer/s from initiation of complaints; same found to be false and is under huge racket, continuation of proceedings would be futile exercise, it would be waste of valuable time of Court and further would lead to harassment of petitioners, more so as they are filed before different courts in different areas of Gujarat – Apex Court formulated as many as seven categories of cases, wherein extraordinary power under Section 482 could be exercised by High Court to prevent abuse of process of court – Apex Court in the said case made following observations – Petitions allowed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Since one of the petitioner in all the mater is common and the co-petitioners are related to the common petitioner and the issue is almost similar, thus, all the petitions are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) praying to quash and set aside the complaints being:

(i) Criminal Case No.1099/1993 filed before the JMFC, Dakor, Dist. Kheda under sections 420 and 114 of IPC, impugned in Criminal Misc. Application No.10639 of 2019;

(ii) Enquiry Case No.6/1994 filed before the JMFC, Bajwa, Vadodara, under sections 420, 406 and 114 of IPC, impugned in Criminal Misc. Application No.10642 of 2019;

(iii) Criminal Case No.288/1994 filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad under sections 420, 406 and 114 of IPC, impugned in Criminal Misc. Application No.10645 of 2019;

(iv) M. Case No.11/1994 filed before the JMFC, Dabhoi, Vadodara, under sections 143, 394, 397 and 398 of IPC, impugned in Criminal Misc. Application No.10646 of 2019;

(v) Criminal Case No.3/1994 filed before the JMFC (Municipal Court), Makarpura, Vadodara, under section 406, 420 and 114 of IPC, impugned in Criminal Misc. Application No.10648 of 2019.

3. Advocate Mr. Vimal Patel for VMP Legal, submits that the petitioners are before this Court praying for quashing of five complaints and states that about ten cases have been registered against Manohar Mangharam Galani and his family members as co-accused, which include father, brother, sister and brother-in-law. He submits that out of ten complaints, five complaints have been dismissed. The brief narration of the five cases, which were dismissed, are enumerated hereunder:

(i) Criminal Case No.704/1994 filed by the complainant – Tarachand Manumal Lalwani against Pushpa Galani under section 138 of the N.I. Act before the JMFC, Dabhoi, Dist. Vadodara, which came to be dismissed. The status of complainant, he was absconding since 1999 and expired on 17.12.2013 and as per the statement recorded in 1995 of the complainant and his wife, they filed the case under pressure from Bharat Bhojwani.

(ii) Summary Suit No.67/1994 filed by the complainant – Vasava Natubhai Chhotubhai against Manohar Galani under Order 37 of CPC before the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Vadodara, came to be dismissed. The status of plaintiff, he was a poor labourer and has given his affidavit stating that he gave his thumb impression to Bharat Bhojwani and Tarachand Lalwani for getting a loan to buy buffalo, and he denied having filed the suit.

(iii) Criminal Case No.337/1994 filed by the complainant – Tahalram Kishnmal Sindhi against Mangharam Galani, Manohar Galani, Dev M. Galani and Pushpa M.Galani under sections 323, 504, 506(II) and 114 of IPC before the JMFC, Padra, Dist. Vadodara, which came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. About the status of complainant, he was a cook and admitted that he never gave any money to the petitioner.

(iv) Criminal Case No.102/1994 filed by the complainant – Harishkumar Mukundlal Panchal against Mangharam Galani, Manohar Galani, Dev M. Galani, Rekha M.Galani and Pushpa M.Galani under sections 406, 420 and 114 of IPC before the JMFC, Borsad, which came to be dismissed as the complainant was absent. The status of complainant, he was a fictitious person.

(v) Enquiry Case No.3/1994 filed by the complainant – Bhagwatiben Sajandas against Manohar Galani and Dev M. Galani under sections 363, 406, 420, 506(II) and 114 of IPC before the JMFC, Jamkhambalia, Dist. Jamnagar, came to be dismissed as the complainant was absent. The status of complainant, he was a fictitious person and not traceable.

The CID (Crime) reports 21.03.1995, 27,03,1995 and 25.02.2004 reflect the facts of complainant being fictitious persons.

4. In context, Advocate Mr. Vimal Patel places reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ajit D. Padiwal v. State of Gujarat, report