IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
GITA GOPI, J.
Sureshchandra Narayanshankar Acharya & Ors. - Applicants
Versus
State of Gujarat & Ors. - Respondents
R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 20564 of 2013 With R/Special Criminal Application No. 3935 of 2013 With R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 11027 of 2014
Decided On : 02-02-2023
Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Sections 323, 337, 427, 504, 114 of IPC, Section 135 of Bombay Police Act - The court rejected the applications for quashing the FIRs and further investigation, stating that both parties should have the opportunity to present their case before the trial court and adduce evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants filed applications for quashing the FIRs and for further investigation, alleging a dispute over agricultural land ownership and possession, physical altercation, and police inaction.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the applications, stating that both parties should have the opportunity to present their case before the trial court and adduce evidence.
Issues: Dispute over land ownership and possession, physical altercation, police inaction, quashing of FIRs, further investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: Both parties should have the opportunity to present their case before the trial court and adduce evidence.
Final Decision: The applications for quashing the FIRs and for further investigation were rejected.
ORDER :
1. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.20564 of 2013 has been filed by the applicants – Sureshchandra Narayanshankar Acharya and Tejas Sureshchandra Acharya under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to in short as ‘Cr.P.C.”) for quashing and setting aside the First Information Report (FIR) bearing I-C.R. No.92 of 2013 registered with Adalaj Police Station, Gandhinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 337, 427, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and the proceedings initiated in pursuant thereto.
2. Special Criminal Application No.3935 of 2013 has been filed by the applicants – Sureshchandra Narayanshankar Acharya and Tejas Sureshchandra Acharya under Section 482 and 483 of the Cr.P.C. for directing further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. by superior authority not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, praying for investigation in a fair manner to unearth the collusion between the Investigating Officer and the accused of the FIR bearing II-C.R. No.287 of 2013 registered with Adalaj Police Station, Gandhinagar by invoking appropriate Sections of the Indian Penal Code and further to take actions against respondent No.3.
3. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.11027 of 2014 has been filed by the applicant – Pankajbhai Amrtubhai Patel under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing and setting aside the First Information Report bearing II-C.R. No.287 of 2013 registered with Adalaj Police Station, Gandhinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 427 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and the proceedings initiated in pursuant thereto. Learned Advocate Mr. S.K. Patel represents the applicant herein.
4. The complaint is filed by the respondent No.2 stating that he owns a Tractor No.GJ-1-LQ-7883 to use for agricultural purpose and that hold an agricultural property in the outskirts of Village Amiyapur, District Gandhinagar bearing Survey No.61/1. On the date of the First Information Report at about 5.30 in the evening, while applicants/accused had gone to the agricultural land the complainant with the said Tractor and his labourer Subhdas were tilling the land, at that time the applicants had gone near him and had questioned him as to why he was tilling the agricultural land of their ownership. It is alleged that the applicants accused got excited and started abusing him to which the complainant asked the accused not to do so. It is further alleged that the accused threw stones, the complainant flinched and thus the complainant received injuries only on the right hand palm. Thereafter, he alighted from the tractor and it is alleged that both the applicant-accused had come near him and had caught hold of his neck and had a fight during which the gold chain of the complainant got broken.
5. It is submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Chetan K. Pandya that the applicant No.1 had purchased the land bearing Survey No.61/1 of Village Amiyapur in the year 1980 from its owner – Thakore Amarsang Lalluji and had paid full sale consideration. However, the Sale Deed could not be executed on account of the Land Ceiling Act. However, the Agreement to Sell was executed in favour of the applicant No.1 and the receipt was issued by the land owner. It is submitted that it is clear that full payment was made towards the sale consideration. It is also submitted that Tenancy Case was instituted under Sections 43 and 63 of the Gujarat Tenancy Agricultural Land Act, 1948. The applicant No.1 was found to be in possession of the land bearing Survey No.61/1 admeasuring 1 acre and 4 gunthas. Since the landlord – Thakore Amarsang Lalluji expired in the year 1997-1998, his daughter Jivatben executed a Sale Deed dated 04.11.2009 in favour of one – Rameshbhai Bulchand Ambvani. It is submitted that as soon as the applicant No.1 came to know about the Sale Deed,
Both parties should have the opportunity to present their case before the trial court and adduce evidence.
Criminal proceedings can be quashed when based on unsubstantiated allegations, especially in cases of inordinate delay in the investigation, which infringes on the right to a speedy trial.
Cheating and forgery – A bonafide criminal prosecution cannot be quashed at threshold.
(1) Ordinarily, an injured witness would not tell a lie as to actual assailants, but there is no presumption or any basis for assuming that statement of such a witness is always correct or without an....
The main legal point established is that a bona fide claim of right or title can protect a person from being convicted of criminal trespass, even if the claim is ill-founded in law.
Point of law: when a dispute essentially of a civil nature is given the cloak of criminal offence and if a civil remedy is available, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedi....
The main legal point established is the need for a fair and thorough investigation in cases involving property disputes and allegations of fraudulent activities.
Allowing criminal proceedings to continue, without there being any criminal element, is not permissible and it amounts to abuse of process of law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.