The court affirmed that inherent powers under Section 482 should not be exercised to quash FIRs when prima facie ingredients of criminal offences are satisfied, emphasizing the need for legitimate prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

(J.C. DOSHI, J.)

1. Rule. Learned APP Mr.Soham Joshi waives service of notice of rule for respondent – State and learned advocate Mr.Kalrav Patel waives service of notice of rule for respondent No.2.

2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”), the applicant seeks quashing of the FIR registered as C.R. No.I-25 of 2017 registered with Shahibaug Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code and further proceedings arising thereof.

3. The brief facts of the case are as under :

3.1 It is the case of complainant that land of friend of first informant Subhash was acquired by Gujarat Housing Board and he wanted to see that land is cleared and released from Gujarat Housing Board. The petitioner gave assurance that sh has political acquaintance and acquaintance with officers and she would see to it that land is cleared. It is alleged that first informant gave Rs.1.25 Crores to the petitioner. However, since after passage of time, when the no action was taken, the first informant approached the petitioner but the petitioner under different pretext did not meet the first informant and the first informant was given threats of dire consequences. The complainant filed the FIR in question against the accused person. Hence, the present petition.

4. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties.

5. Arguing for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr.B.M.Mangukiya would submit that the FIR is filed after the five years of the alleged incident. He would further submit that to entangle the present petitioner in legal soup barring the impugned FIR, series of written complaints have been lodged with the police department. He would further submit that looking to the tenor of the FIR, it seems to be a civil litigation which has been given colour of criminality. After referring the impugned FIR, Mr.Mangukiya termed all allegations as general and vague allegations. He would submit that no essential ingredients of offence punishable under Section 406 and 420 of IPC are satisfied. He would further submit that person of ordinary prudence would not lend such a huge amount to the petitioner being a Sadhavi who has renounced the normal life and therefore, looking to these circumstances, he would submit that FIR is vexatious and frivolous and needed to be quashed by exercising the inherent powers. Upon above submissions, he would submit to allow this petition.

6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Kalrav Patel appearing for the first informant on the other hand would submit that on reading the FIR, it indicates that specific name of the petitioner as well as her role has been specifically stated therein. He would further submit that in capacity of Sadhavi of Math, the petitioner has duped huge amount from the large section of the society who have kept blind faith upon her religiously and spiritually. It is also submitted that she is since holding political connections, she could not allow to file FIR against her till the impugned FIR. He would submit that all the victims then rushed to the police and lodged various complaints against the present petitioner. He would further submit that on bare reading of the FIR, essential the ingredients of offence under Section 405 and 415 of IPC are made out, punishment of which are stated in Section 406 and 420 of IPC and therefore, he submits that allegations against the present petitioner deserve to be tested during the trial. He would further submit that the FIR should not be scuttled at the initial stage of investigation. Upon above submissions, he would submit to dismiss this petition.

7. Learned APP Mr.Manan Maheta appearing for the respondent – State adopts the arguments of learned advocate Mr.Patel and would submit that in all ten FIRs are filed against the present petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner is Sadhavi of Math and she is Mahant and taking disadvantage of he