IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that ongoing investigations by CID Crime are valid despite no FIR being registered, emphasizing that courts should not interfere unless exceptional circumstances arise.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP N. BHATT, J.

1. The present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is filed by the petitioners – original accused for :- (i) quashment of the impugned summons / notice dated 05.09.2024, 11.10.2024 and 06.11.2024 issued by respondent No.3 i.e. the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID Crime, Ahmedabad Zone, Ahmedabad pursuant to the application dated 28.06.2024 filed by the original complainant – respondent No.4, (ii) directing respondent No.3 to place on record the said application dated 28.06.2024 being No.CID/AU Application No.1045/1373/2024 and quash the same and (iii) restraining respondents No.2 and 3 from carrying out any investigation / inquiry pursuant to the said application dated 28.06.2024 pending this petition.

2. Heard learned senior advocate Mr.Anshin Desai with learned advocate Mr. Apurva Kapadia for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr. Dipan Desai for original complainant and learned Public Prosecutor Mr.Hardik Dave with learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Adityasinh Jadeja for the State.

3.1 Learned senior advocate Mr.Anshin Desaid for the petitioners has submitted that on bare reading of the allegations levelled by the complainant, it does not constitute any offence as alleged and, therefore, the application dated 25.06.2024 filed by the complainant is not maintainable. He has further submitted that the said complaint is filed after a delay of almost 8 years from the date of the sale transaction. He has also submitted that the complaint in question is field only to blackmail the petitioners for oozing out money. He has also submitted that the alleged purchase of the complainant is of the year 2016 from one Rashikbhai Lallubhai Patel, who had no right, title or interest to enter into the sale deed, once the land was sold to plot holders from the year 2007 onward and therefore, such a filing of an application for registration of FIR after delay of almost 8 years from the sale itself is an abuse of process of law.

3.2 He has further submitted that by filing straightway application to the respondent authorities, who are incompetent to investigate, is not at all maintainable under the provisions of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He has also submitted that it is only when the competent police officer of the concerned police station refuses to lodge complaint, an application can be made to the superior officer. The present application is moved directly to the office of respondent No.2 – C.I.D. Crime, Ahmedabad, only because of the fact that the day on which the application is moved to the concerned police station, immediately, the offences being registered under the direction of the higher officers and all the petitioners can be held under the said offences and be arrested immediately and therefore, moving of such an application before the higher authority is not maintainable in the eyes of law.

3.3 He has further submitted that CID Crime, Ahmedabad despite knowing well that in respect of the land in question, when two FIRs are already filed against respondent No.4, taking such application for the offence, which has not occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of CID Crime, Ahmedabad, notice has been issued, which speaks the conduct of respondent No.3 for initiation of the proceeding at the behest of respondent No.4. He has submitted that repeated attempts to call petitioner No.1 for recording of the statement for the offences, in which, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have no jurisdiction to investigate itself, the conduct of respondent Nos.2 and 3 of blackmailing the petitioners so that the dispute can be settled with the respondent No.4.

3.4 He has further submitted that it is a civil dispute, which has been converted into criminal one by respondent No.4 by filing the impugned complaint just to settle personal score and ooze out money from the petitioners. He has also submitted that petitioner No.1 had already appeared before respondent