Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Guj) 292

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
M. K. THAKKER, J.
Dattubhai @ Chhatrasinh Hamirsinh Desai – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Anr. – Respondents
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 19505 of 2014
Decided on : 12-03-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR HARNISH V DARJI
For the Respondent: MS LAKSHA K BHAVNANI, MS VRUNDA SHAH

IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the allegations of forgery, cheating, and threatening must satisfy the essential elements of the offenses under the Indian Penal Code. The court emphasized that the continuation of the FIR would amount to an abuse of process of law if the allegations did not meet these essential elements.

Headnote:
Forgery - Land Dispute - Indian Penal Code, Sections 420, 467, 468, 120B, 504, 506 - The court examined the allegations of forgery, cheating, and threatening in the context of a land dispute. It found that the allegations did not satisfy the essential elements of the offenses under the Indian Penal Code. The court referred to the legal provisions defining forgery, cheating, and threatening, and concluded that the continuation of the FIR would amount to an abuse of process of law. The impugned FIR was quashed to secure the ends of justice.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the sale of land in village Asha, Taluka Jaghdiya, District Bharuch. The complainant alleged that the accused, including the present applicant, failed to execute a sale deed and resorted to threats. The accused contended that the dispute was purely civil in nature and that the FIR was an abuse of process of law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations did not satisfy the essential elements of the offenses under the Indian Penal Code. It concluded that the continuation of the FIR would amount to an abuse of process of law.
Issues: The issues revolved around the allegations of forgery, cheating, and threatening in the context of a land dispute. The court had to determine whether the allegations satisfied the essential elements of the offenses under the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court referred to the legal provisions defining forgery, cheating, and threatening and analyzed the allegations in light of these provisions. It concluded that the continuation of the FIR would amount to an abuse of process of law.
Final Decision: The impugned FIR was quashed and set aside with consequential proceedings, if any.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the Cr.P.C.’ referred hereinafter) praying to quash the complaint being IC. R.No.29 of 2014 registered with Umala Police Station, Bharuch for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120B, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant, namely, Dhavalbhai Bipinbhai Patel has filed the aforesaid FIR against two accused, namely Dattubhai @ Chatrasinh Hamirsinh Desaithe present applicant and Jayendrasinh Laxmansinh Raj. It is alleged in the aforesaid FIR that the present applicant is the owner and occupier of the various parcels of land in village Asha, Taluka Jaghdiya, District Bharuch. One of the land bearing Block No.811A and 811B of village Asha Taluka Jaghdiya, District Bharuch was owned by the applicant and his son namely Hemendrasinh Desai. The agreement to sell came to be executed with regard to the aforesaid land between Jayendrasinh Laxmansinh Raj and the applicant on 09.05.2013 as the said Jayendrasinh Laxmansinh Raj could not make the payment of the amount as agreed therefore, the agreement to sell came to be cancelled vide communication dated 19.12.2013. That, another agreement to sell came to be entered between the applicant and the original complainant, namely Dhavalbhai Bipinbhai Patel, which was executed on 14.05.2013. In the said agreement to sell, Jayendrasinh Raj signed as a witness. The said agreement to sell was signed by the applicant and as his son was not available therefore, his signature could not be obtained.

3. Pursuant to the said agreement, Jayendrasinh Raj has accepted the amount from Dahavalbhai i.e. the complainant and he issued receipt for the same. The amount which is paid to Jayendrasinh Raj was of Rs.1,30,000/out of Rs.79,37,075/. It was alleged in the FIR that when the complainant approached to Chatrasinh and asked him to execute the sale deed, it was conveyed that Bank loan was applied and after sanctioning the loan from the Bank, the sale deed would be executed. Despite of various requests, the sale deed was not executed and when the insistence was made by the complainant to execute the deed, threats were administered by the accused persons named in the FIR. Thereafter, on 20/12/2012 the accused had given the notice through the advocate Chaganbhai Gobhi conveying cancelling agreement to sell on the ground that Rs.20 Lakh was accepted by Chatrasinh and Rs.60 Lakh was still lying with Jayendrasinh, which is the part of sale consideration as per the agreement to sell but, no sale deed was executed thereafter the FIR came to be filed, which is subject matter of challenge.

4. Heard the learned advocate Mr.Harnish Darji for the applicant and learned advocate Ms.Laksha Bhavnani for the respondent-complainant.

5. Learned advocate Mr.Harnish Darji for the applicant submits that the accused No.2 introduced the complainant to the applicant. The agreement to sell which was executed on 14.05.2013 between the applicant and the complainant in which the amount of sale consideration is received and receipt thereof was issued by the accused No.2. Learned advocate Mr.Darji submits that since the condition of the agreement to sell dated 14.05.2013 is not being complied with, legal notice came to be issued on 20.12.2013 cancelling the agreement to sell dated 14.05.2013. The complainant replied to the notice on 22.01.2014 thereafter, approached to the Civil Court by way of filing the suit being special civil suit No.84 of 2014 for the declaration, permanent injunction and specific performance to the agreement to sell.

5.1. Learned advocate Mr.Darji submits that as no relief was granted initially, therefore, the FIR came to be filed on 13.06.2014 for the alleged sections. Learned advocate Mr.Darji submits that due to cancellation of an agreement to sell civil consequences i.e. civil proceedings arose. Learned advocate Mr.Darji submits that there is no crim