Courts exercise caution in quashing FIRs, only intervening if no cognizable offense is disclosed; criminal proceedings should not be scuttled prematurely.

ORDER :

J. C. DOSHI, J.

1. The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash and set aside the Criminal Case No.56 of 2010 with the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kadi and all other proceedings initiated pursuant thereto. 2. The Respondent No.2–Complainant and the Applicant– Accused are co-tenants in Property No. City No. 12/1 situated in City Survey No. 71/B1 at Village: Kadi, Taluka Kadi, District Mehsana, for the past 20 years. On 22.09.2008, the complainant entered into an agreement with the applicant for operating a hotel business under the name “Tulsi” on the said premises owned by Shri Gulabnabi Haji Mohmad and Shri Abdulkadar Mohamad Siddiki. It is alleged that the applicant started acting in a manner detrimental to the complainant’s interest in the joint business and subsequently forged a Consent Agreement dated 13.10.2010 by affixing signatures of the original owners in the presence of a notary to obtain an electricity connection, and further attempted to exclude the complainant’s name from GEB and Nagarpalika records.

2.1. Upon learning of the forged consent, the original owners are stated to have executed an affidavit dated 08.11.2010, disowning the signatures on the alleged consent agreement. Relying on these events, the complainant filed a private complaint against the applicant, leading the learned JMFC, Kadi, to direct investigation under Section 202 (1) of the Cr.P.C., culminating in issuance of process vide order dated 12.09.2014. It is the case of the applicant that the complainant, being neither the aggrieved party nor authorized by the original owners, has misused the criminal process. A Regular Civil Suit No. 45 of 2012 filed by the original owners against both parties for recovery of rent and possession is already pending. Hence, the present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of Criminal Inquiry Case No. 56 of 2010 and the order dated 12.09.2014 passed by the learned JMFC, Kadi.

3. Learned advocate Ms. Dhara Shah, appearing for the petitioners, assailing the issuance of process by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kadi, submitted that the impugned order has been passed without due application of mind. It is contended that the learned trial Court failed to consider the crucial fact that the person whose signature is allegedly forged—Mr. Ghulam Nabi Haji Mohammad and Mr. Abdul Kadir Mohammad—has not lodged any complaint in that regard. Instead, a private complaint has been instituted at the behest of a third party, alleging forgery of the said signatures on a document titled Sammati Karar Lekh (Annexure-B).

3.1. She further submitted that the dispute is essentially of a civil nature, arising out of a partnership disagreement, wherein the complainant is one of the partners. The allegation pertains to the forgery of the landlord’s signature on the Sammati Karar Lekh (Annexure-B), purportedly executed between the partners.

3.2. It was also brought to the attention of this Court that the landlord had instituted Civil Suit No. 45 of 2012 before the learned Principal Civil Judge, Kadi, seeking vacant and peaceful possession of the demised premises. However, the said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter, a restoration application being Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2024 was preferred, which too came to be rejected by the competent Court, i.e., the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kadi.

3.3. All these proceedings, learned counsel contended, clearly demonstrate that the private complaint is motivated by malice and has been filed with the sole intention to harass the petitioners, despi