Back
2025 Supreme(Guj) 1677
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J. C. DOSHI, J.
Wilsonbhai Somchandbhai Thakor (Since deceased through legal heirs) & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Ors. - Respondent
Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No. 6546 Of 2017
Decided On : 11-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr Kh Baxi
For the Respondent: Mr. Suhail Z Saiyed, Mr. Chintan Dave, Addl. Public Prosecutor
High Court under Article 227 cannot intervene in matters unless serious judicial errors occur; allegations of fraud must have detailed supporting evidence for limitations to be extended.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 203 - Quashing of Complaint - Petitioner challenged rejection of private complaint by Magistrate and Sessions Court; courts found no prima facie case, deeming dispute civil in nature; hence complaint was dismissed. (Paras 1-9)
(B) Supervisory Jurisdiction - High Court under Article 227 does not act as appellate authority; it should only correct grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse of jurisdiction; mere errors of fact not grounds for interference. (Paras 6-7)
(C) Limitation Act - Suit barred by limitation; mere allegations of fraud insufficient to extend limitation. (Paras 8-10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner alleged fraud concerning disputed land ownership; previous legal remedies proved futile, with courts affirming errors in the complaint.
Findings of Court:
The courts established no grounds for proceeding with the complaint, asserting it was of civil nature and time-barred.
Issues: The core issues included whether the dismissal of the complaint was justified due to a lack of a prima facie case and the application of limitation laws.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court elucidated that supervisory jurisdiction is strictly about correcting significant judicial failures, not reassessing evidence from lower courts; the petitioner must substantiate claims.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments of the petitioner and respondents (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's observations on supervisory jurisdiction (Para 6) |
| 4. application of limitation laws and implications of fraud allegations (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. final dismissal of the petition (Para 9) |
ORDER :
J. C. DOSHI, J.
1. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the judgement and order dated 31.3.2017 passed by the Honourable Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Application no. 348/2014 confirming the order dated 24.9.2013, dismissed the complaint u/s. 203 of Cr. P.C. passed by the Ld. Magistrate and be pleased to further direct to proceed with the complaint in accordance with law.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
2.1 The petitioner lodged complaint being criminal case no. 135 of 2012 in the court of Honourable Metropolitan Magistrate, court no.5, Ahmedabad against the accused nos.2 & 3 u/s.406, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 & 114 of IPC stating the accused nos. 2 & 3 who were agricultural tenant of the land bearing survey no.195/197/1 of village Chosar, Taluka: Daskroi, Dist: Ahmedabad which land, on consolidation was given block no.162 54 882 admeasuring about 1-Hec 11 Are 54 Sq. mtrs which is of the ownership of the petitioner and the produce were shared. At around before the date of the complaint, the petitioner came to know that some scandal has been committed with respect to the said land and on inquiry, the petitioner found that the respondent no.2 & 3 have committed various offences in order to grab the said land as also without following the procedure, the land has been shown in their name. The relevant documents were also produced before the Honourable Court and therefore, had prayed for further investigation u/s.156(3) of Cr.P.C.
2.2 The Honourable Court by its order, sent the same for inquiry to Karanj Police Station. The Ld. Magistrate by an order dated 24.9.2013, dismissed the said complaint u/s.203 of Cr.P.C. holding that no prima facie case is made out.
2.3 The petitioner being aggrieved by the same, preferred Special Criminal Application no.910 of 2014 in this Honourable Court and prayed for quashing and setting aside of the said order. Honourable Court by its order dated 27th August, 2014 allowed the petitioner to avail the remedy of revision.
2.4 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied by the same, the petitioner preferred revision application no.348 of 2014 before the Honourable Sessions Court, Ahmedabad. The Honourable Sessions Court by its order dated 31.3.2007, rejected the said revision application.
2.5 Hence, present petition.
3. Assailing the concurrent findings of fact, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that both the courts below have committed serious error in rejecting the private complaint registered by the petitioner for the aforestated offences. After reading private complaint, he would submit that looking to the allegations levelled in the complaint, the learned Court below were at least required to send the documents for FSL, so that it can come on record that the signature made on the registered sale deed is genuine or otherwise. He would further submit that the learned Court below have rejected the complaint simply on the ground that dispute is of a civil nature and the complaint of which has been filed after long passage of time. He would further submit that the complainant no sooner came to know about selling of the disputed land by forging the signature of the deceased, he filed private complaint. Upon above submissions, he prays to allow the petition.
4. On the other hand, learned advocate for the private respondents would submit that even on the civil front, the petitioner has filed civil suit under Order 7 Rule 11(D) of the CPC, which he has lost. He would further submit that even the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRA No.480 of 2015 believed that the suit is hopelessly time barred
