Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.C. DOSHI, J.
Ranchhodbhai Bhikhabhai Rabari – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & others – Respondents
R/Criminal Misc.Application No. 20561 of 2015
Decided on : 10-08-2023
Robbery - Criminal Procedure Code - 482 - 390, 391 - The court dismissed the petition for quashing the FIR under section 395 of IPC, as it found sufficient material to send the accused for trial. The court held that the intention to cause hurt or commit robbery could be examined during trial and that the FIR disclosed the ingredients of the offence. The court also noted that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the FIR was mala fide, frivolous, or vexatious.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the FIR filed against him, alleging that a civil dispute over land had been turned into a criminal matter. The FIR accused the petitioner and another individual of ransacking a shop and committing robbery.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was sufficient material to proceed with the trial and dismissed the petition for quashing the FIR. It noted that the intention to cause hurt or commit robbery could be examined during trial and that the FIR disclosed the ingredients of the offence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the FIR should be quashed under section 395 of IPC, and whether there was sufficient material to proceed with the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the intention to cause hurt or commit robbery could be examined during trial and that the FIR disclosed the ingredients of the offence. It also noted that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the FIR was mala fide, frivolous, or vexatious.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition for quashing the FIR and discharged the rule. Any interim relief granted earlier was vacated.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of respondent – State and learned advocate Mr. Shah waives service of rule on behalf of respondent no.2.
2. By way of present petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner – Ranchhodbhai Bhikhabhai Rabari has prayed for following reliefs :-
(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of present petition, Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay further proceedings of FIR being I.C.R.No.169/2015 registered with Kadi Police Station and be further pleased to restrain IO, Kadi Police Station from acting in furtherance of the impugned FIR being I.C.R.No.169/2015 registered with Kadi Police Station.”
3. The facts which could be garnered from the pleadings are stated shortly as under :-
3.1. Respondent no.2 – Rasikbhai Bhagwandas Patel was owner and was in possession of land bearing survey no.467/2 paiki 1 ad-measuring 17503 sq.mtrs. at Mouje Jasalpur, District Kadi. Respondent no.2 has sold said land to Sureshkumar Ambalal Patel by registered sale deed. Unregistered deed for confirmation in nature of receipt was signed between seller and purchaser was also executed. Subsequently, another unregistered MOU was executed between Suresh Ambalal Patel, Sharbhai Laljibhai Rabari and Rabari Ranchhodbhai Bhikhabhai (petitioner) distributing share of each of signatory to the contract (Annexure -D). The petitioner later on came to know that land in question for which MOU was executed does not exist at all. According to the petitioner, they went to respondent no.2 and informed about the same. The petitioner claimed that respondent no.2 not only turned down his request but also threaten with false implication, if petitioner proceeds further.
3.2. In background of above facts garnered from the petition, perusal of the FIR indicates that FIR was filed by respondent no.2 alleging that present petitioner and another Mr. Manish Rabari on 11.09.2015 went to shop belonging to respondent no.2 in Gajjar Chambers and made altercation and ransacked shop along with three persons who were on bike standing outside of the shop, all came together. According to FIR, the petitioner and another Mr. Manish Rabari came into shop, Manish Rabari was holding small spade and the petitioner was holding Dhoka (wooden bat) and ransacked shop of the petitioner. At the relevant time on counter, Mr. Rohitbhai, Mr. Nileshbhai and nephew of complainant viz. Milkeshbhai and Vishnubhai were present. It is alleged that present petitioner and Mr. Mainish Rabari after ransacking shop took away Rs.1 lac cash and gold ornaments of the petitioner of around 14 grams and as such the petitioner as well as Mr. Manish Rabari and three other persons have committed loot.
3.3. FIR came to be lodged with above allegations with Kadi Police Station being C.R.No.I-169 of 2015 against present petitioner as well as Mr. Mainsh Rabari and three unidentified persons for the offences punishable under sections 395 and 427 of IPC read with section 135 of Gujarat Police Act.
3.4. In background of above facts, present petitioner – Rachhodbhai Bhikhabhai Rabari invokes jurisdiction of this Court vested under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashment of FIR.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Tejas Barot for the petitioner/accused, Mr. Abhaykumar Shah for respondent no.2 – complainant and learned APP Mr.Ronak Raval for respondent – State.
5. Arguing for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr.Tejas Barot submits that civil dispute of land has been given clock of criminality by filing impugned FIR. He would further submit that respondent no.2 has played mischief with the petitioner in executing MOU for the land which is not in existence. He would further submit that in the present case, accused are charged with the alleged offence punishable under section 395 and 427 of IPC read with
The court emphasized that the intention to cause hurt or commit robbery could be examined during trial and that the FIR disclosed the ingredients of the offence. It also highlighted the importance of....
The court emphasized that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly exercised and that the court should not interfere with the investigation unless no cognizable offence is disclosed. I....
Cheating and forgery – A bonafide criminal prosecution cannot be quashed at threshold.
The Court emphasized that the determination of the truthfulness of allegations and sufficiency of evidence is within the domain of the trial court, and the exercise of inherent power to quash the FIR....
The court emphasized that the veracity of defense materials cannot be examined at the stage of quashing the FIR and that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly. It also highlighted that ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of quashing an FIR should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, especially at the nascent stage of investigation, and that....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
