Mahendrabhai Dayabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Guj) 1282

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.C. DOSHI, J.
Mahendrabhai Dayabhai Patel & Other – Appellants
Versus
State Of Gujarat & others – Respondents
R/Criminal Misc.Application No. 15805 of 2015
Decided on : 01-08-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR RIDDHESH TRIVEDI
For the Respondent: MS ASMITA PATEL

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent powers of High Court - Criminal proceedings based on FIR quashed - Allegations in FIR deemed improbable and absurd, serving as a counterblast to civil proceedings initiated by petitioners - The petitioners are partners of a firm and the complainant made false allegations following failed business transactions. (Paras 4-6, 9, 10, 14, 15)

(B) FIR quashed - The court emphasized the necessity for caution in exercising inherent powers, particularly when a dispute seemingly of civil nature is misinterpreted as criminal, aligning with principles laid down in numerous precedents. (Paras 10, 12, 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners executed an oral contract for construction and fabrication work for the complainant's cold storage, but were met with payment refusal and abusive threats, subsequently leading to filing of FIR.

Findings of Court:
The FIR lacks sufficient basis and is categorized as inherently improbable; hence, the court has quashed it to prevent misuse of legal process.

Issues: Whether the allegations in the FIR meet the threshold for criminal offenses and the implications of ongoing civil litigation on these criminal allegations.

Ratio Decidendi: The allegations are viewed as absurd given their timing and the context of civil disputes, enabling the court to exercise its inherent powers to quash the FIR.

Result: FIR quashed and all subsequent proceedings dismissed.

Table of Content
1. introduction and presence of parties (Para 1 , 2)
2. background facts and context of the complaint (Para 3 , 4)
3. petition for quashment of fir (Para 5)
4. arguments regarding the validity of the fir (Para 6 , 8)
5. legal standard for quashing fir under section 482 (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
6. assertion of counterblast fir and civil nature of dispute (Para 13 , 14)
7. final order quashing the fir (Para 15)

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Riddhesh Trivedi for the petitioners and learned APP Ms. Asmita Patel for the respondent State.

2. Rule is served to respondent No.2, but he has chosen not to appear.

3. The petitioners have invoked jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quell the FIR being I – C.R. No.33 of 2015 registered with Dhansura Police Station for the offences punishable u/s 143, 323, 294(B), 506(2), 427 of the IPC.

4. The facts which can be gathered that the petitioners are the partners of the partnership firm Jagdip Engineering having business of fabrication work as per the need and requirement of the customer. The complainant is in the business of cold storage in the name and style of Jay Gurudev Agro Products at Vadagam, Dhansura. The petitioners were contacted by the complainant for construction of cold storage and fabrication work and said work was entrusted to the petitioners by oral contract. The work was completed. The bill was tendered by the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the original accused did not pay heed to clear the amount of the petitioners though several reminders were made, but the same turned into futile exercise. Since the complainant was not receiving the call, the petitioners went to Jay Gurudev Agro Products on 1.6.2015, but found with shock and surprise that the complainant denied to pay the amount of the bill and started abusing the present petitioners and warned not to enter into the premises and demand money with displaying intent that he shall not pay any amount. Therefore, the petitioners approached Dhansura Police Station to lodge the complaint against the complainant, but it could not be registered. The petitioners alleges that the complainant was powerful and influential person. Meanwhile, civil litigation started for recovery of the amount. In the background of these facts, the complainant filed impugned FIR before Dhansura Police Station on 1.6.2015 alleging that the petitioners came to the business premises of the complainant and spoken filth and abusive language to the son of the complainant. The petitioners were aggravated or exited, and out of such aggravation, they were speaking anything,Not only that, the son of the complainant was given kick and fist blow. Then the petitioners have passed with a threat of life to the complainant.

5. The petitioners approached this Court by way of this petition seeking quashment of the impugned FIR u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Riddhesh Trivedi for the petitioners would assail the FIR on two grounds. Firstly, he would submit that bare reading of the FIR would not indicate the ingredients of offences alleged in the FIR. He would further submit that no injury certificate is collected nor the complainant showed that on what part of the body, the son of the complainant was given kick and fist blow. He would further submit that the complainant alleges that the petitioners have spoken filthy and abusive language on 1.6.2015. However, the FIR came to be lodged on 6.7.2015 i.e. almost after one month, without any reason for delay.

This aspect assumes significance on the ground that one of the petitioners, namely, Mahendrabhai Patel had filed written complaint before Dehgam Police Station alleging misbehaviour of the complainant on 4.6.2015. Thus, the impugned FIR is counterblast to the said complaint. He would further submit that meanwhile, between the parties, civil proceedings also materialized and pending for disposal. He therefore, would submit that the FIR on bare fa