Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 3
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
ILESH J. VORA, J
TOSIF ABDULAZIZ SHAIKH & 2 other(s) – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s) – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3629 of 2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR P P MAJMUDAR
For the Respondents: MR.D K.PUJ, MR LB DABHI, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Filing of FIR based on false representations without proof of fraudulent intent constitutes abuse of process; Court may quash such FIRs.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Applicants sought to quash FIR alleging cheating in an investment matter - Allegations were deemed improbable and a counterblast to ongoing family litigation - Essential ingredients of cheating and intimidation not established, leading to dismissal of the FIR. (Paras 1-20)
(B) Criminal Proceedings - High Court's power to quash - Requires examination if allegations constitute abuse of process of law - Admissions taken at face value, do not disclose any offence against applicants, hence quashed. (Paras 9-20)
Facts of the case:
The applicants, related to the complainant, were alleged to have induced the complainant to invest Rs. 4 lakhs under false pretenses promising high returns but failed to return the amount, leading to the FIR.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the allegations lacked substance and were aimed at pressuring the applicants amidst ongoing matrimonial disputes, thus quashing the FIR.
Issues: The court addressed whether the FIR constituted a credible allegation of fraud or cheating and if the application for quashing should be granted given the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court systematically highlighted the absence of fraudulent intent and the implausibility of the accusations, thus reinforcing the principle that civil disputes should not be converted into criminal allegations.
Result: Application allowed; FIR quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application filed under section 482 cpc for quashing fir. (Para 1) |
| 2. overview of facts regarding the investment and relationship between parties. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 3. applicants argue the fir is motivated by family disputes. (Para 5 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. the court outlines necessary elements for cheating. (Para 10) |
ORDER
1. By way of this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants original accused seek to invoke inherent powers of this Court for quashing of First Information Report being CR.No.I-294 of 2013 registered with Panigate police station at Vadodara city for the offences punishable under sections 420, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code .
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to filing of the present application are that the applicants and respondent no.2 complainant are related to each other. The daughter of applicant No.2 married with respondent complainant and marriage was solemnized on 27.05.2010. 3. Applicant No.1 is brother-in-law, applicants No.2 and 3 are father- in-law and mother-in-law respectively of respondent No.2. It is alleged that the complainant had given cash of Rs. 4 lakhs to applicant No.1 Tausif Shaikh for investment purpose. Applicant No.1 was working as Sub-agent with KSP Investment, Ahmedabad. It is alleged that applicant No.1 had if he will invest money in KSP Investment, then within six months, he will get 200% return of his investment. It is further alleged that after completion of six months, the complainant contacted his brother- in-law, applicant No.1 to return the invested money. However, he did not heed his request and failed to return the amount. It is further alleged that he complained to accused No.2 and 3 for the conduct of their son accused No.1 and they also assured that the invested amount would be returned back in a short time. It is further alleged that on 13.11.2013 when he came to the house of his father, he met the applicants herein and enquired about his money, which he had invested at the behest of applicant No.1. The accused herein got annoyed and threatened him for dire consequences, if he asked about the investment amount.
4. In the aforesaid facts, respondent complaint approached the Panigate police station and lodged the FIR for the offences as referred above and the same has been registered on 25.11.2013.
5. Applicants herein have preferred the instant application for quashing of the criminal proceedings, mainly on the ground that the present FIR is nothing but a counterblast to the various proceedings initiated against him by his own wife, who happens to be the daughter of applicants Nos.2 and 3 . The second contention raised is that allegations in the FIR are highly improbable and is registered with ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the applicant accused.
6. This Court has heard learned counsel Mr. P.P.Majmudar, learned counsel Mr. D.K.Puj and learned APP Mr. L.B. Dabhi for the respective parties.
7. Mr. P.P. Majmudar, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the applicants submitted that the allegations in the FIR are absolutely concocted and if the same are accepted in their entirety, did not prima facie constitute an offence or make out a case against the applicants. The sister of applicant No.1, who happens to be the wife of the complainant has initiated Court proceedings like complaint under the Domestic Violence Act, claimed maintenance under 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and filing a complaint under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and same are pending before the Court concerned. She has also filed a Civil Suit to protect her possession of the flat property against the father of the complainant, wherein ad interim injunction was granted restraining the defendant not to dispossess her. In this context, he submitted that after filing of various proceedings by the wife of the complainant, the present FIR is filed, which is an afterthou
