SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Guj) 434

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Ilesh J. Vora, J.
Feroze Falibhai Contractor - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Gujarat & Anr. - Respondent
Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No. 4483 of 2020
Decided On : 30-05-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr I.H. Syed, Senior Advocate With Mr P P Majmudar, Mr Suraj B Matieda
For the Respondent:Mr. Shalin Mehta, Senior Advocate With Mr. Nisarg N Jain, Mr. Bhargav Pandya, APP.

Headnote:

Firoz Falibhai Contractor - Quashing of FIR - IPC 177, 181, 406, 465, 467, 471, 212, 114 and Gujarat Prohibition of Transfer of Immovable Property and provision of Protection of Tenants from Eviction from the Premises in Disturbed Areas Act, 1991 - Sections 5, 6(d) - The court discussed the statutory provisions of the Disturbed Areas Act, the requirement of prior permission for property transfer, and the relevance of caste/religion in obtaining previous sanction. The court also highlighted the legal bar against the initiation of proceedings under IPC 177 and 181 without a written complaint by the public servant concerned. The court quashed charges under IPC 177, 181, and Section 6(d) of the Disturbed Areas Act due to legal inconsistencies.

Fact of the Case:

The accused sought quashing of the FIR and criminal case filed against him for various offences including criminal breach of trust, cheating, and forgery. The accused was alleged to have obtained previous sanction for property transfer by concealing his caste/religion and furnishing a false address, leading to charges under IPC and the Disturbed Areas Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the accused's intentional concealment of material facts to obtain previous sanction prima facie constituted offences. However, the court also noted legal inconsistencies in the charges under IPC 177, 181, and Section 6(d) of the Disturbed Areas Act, leading to their quashing.

Issues: The issues revolved around the accused's alleged fraudulent actions in obtaining previous sanction, the relevance of caste/religion in the process, and the legal bar against initiating proceedings under IPC 177 and 181 without a written complaint by the public servant concerned.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused's intentional concealment of material facts to obtain previous sanction prima facie constituted offences. However, the court also noted legal inconsistencies in the charges under IPC 177, 181, and Section 6(d) of the Disturbed Areas Act, leading to their quashing.

Final Decision: The court allowed the application in part, quashing charges under IPC 177, 181, and Section 6(d) of the Disturbed Areas Act, while directing the trial of other offences in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT :

1. This application is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., whereby applicant – original accused no. 1 – Firoz Falibhai Contractor, resident of Vadodara, is seeking quashment of the FIR being CR. No.11196008200983 of 2020 registered with J.P. Nagar Police Station, Vadodara for the offences punishable under Sections 177, 181, 406, 465, 467, 471 and 212 read with Section 114 of the IPC and Section 6(d) of the Gujarat Prohibition of Transfer of Immovable Property and provision of Protection of Tenants from Eviction from the Premises in Disturbed Areas Act, 1991 (herein after referred as ‘Disturbed Areas Act’).

2. This Court has heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. I.H. Syed assisted by Mr. Panthil Majmudar, learned advocate appearing for and on behalf of the applicant – accused, Mr.Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Nisarg Jain, learned advocate appearing for and on behalf of original informant – private respondent and Mr.Bhargav Pandya, learned APP appearing for the respondent State.

3. Brief facts giving rise to file present application are that:

The applicant accused – Firoz Contractor vide registered sale deed dated 07.02.2018 purchased property in question bearing plot No. 9 situated at Samarpan Society, Vasna Road, Tandalja, City Vadodara.

The area in which the property is situated is declared as ‘disturbed area’ and any party intend to transfer the property by way of sell etc, the prior permission of the Deputy Collector under Section 5 of the Disturbed Areas Act is necessary. Section 5 provides that, subject to provisions of sub-section (3), no immovable property situated in the disturbed area shall during the period of subsistence of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 declaring such area to be the disturbed area, be transferred except with the previous permission of the Collector. The procedure for obtaining permission is provided in sub-section (3) of the Act, which says that, any person intending to transfer immovable property situated in a disturbed area may, within the prescribed period and in the prescribed form, make an application to the Collector for obtaining previous sanction under sub-section (1).

In light of the aforesaid statutory provisions, the application for obtaining previous sanction was filed on 26.02.2015. The Deputy Collector, Vadodara granted previous sanction on 21.09.2017. The NOC from Samarpan Housing Society was also obtained on 30.01.2015. The applicant accused vide registered sale deed dated 07.02.2018, purchased the said plot no.9 from the erstwhile owner Mr.Dashrathlal Panchal. The applicant accused while obtaining the previous sanction, submitted an affidavit and filled up the check- list, wherein he disclosed his caste/religion (Parsi) and also mentioned his residential address i.e. Faramji Compound, B/h. Railway Station, Alkapuri, Vadodara, as per the Government record.

After purchasing the said property, applicant Firoz Contractor did not want to retain the said property and decided to sell it to co- accused Firoz Mohammad Patel, Sabir Mohammad and Hanifa Mohammad Patel. As the property falls under the disturbed area, the previous sanction of the Deputy Collector, Vadodara was necessary. The accused Firoz along with the proposed purchaser applied for previous sanction on 04.05.2019. He as well as purposed purchaser filled a check-list as well as submitted an affidavit as per the procedure laid down under the Rules. In the affidavit, the applicant Firoz did not mention his caste/religion. In the affidavit as well as check-list, he mentioned the address which is not his regular resident address. In such circumstances, considering the particulars and contents of the affidavit as well as check-list, the authority was of the view that the parties belong to Muslim Community and therefore, without inviting police inquiry, granted a previous sanction on 16.05.2019. Thereafter, the accused executed a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top