IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 3528 of 2020 ==========================================================

KARSHANBHAI SAVJIBHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

A S TIMBALIA(7372) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR M.NISAR VAIDHYA(3386) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS DIVYANGANA JHALA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 06/08/2024

ORAL ORDER

1. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and with consent of learned advocate for the respective parties, matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.

3. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”), the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the complaint being FIR C.R. No.11214046200028 of 2020 registered with Palsana Police Station, Surat for the offences under Sections 341, 447, 427, 504 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

4. The facts of the case are that the complainant is the owner of a property situated at Block Nos. 354, 355, and 356, comprising agricultural land near NH-48. In the years 2011-12, the complainant and his partner developed a scheme called Sanskruti Greenland, constructing 115 bungalows and two clubhouses on the said land. In 2017-18, the complainant met Arun Mukharji, Director of Sadhbhavna Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., who expressed interest in renting the complainant's clubhouse. The complainant and his partner entered into a rent agreement with Sadhbhavna Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. and handed over possession of the clubhouse. In 2019, the complainant and Arun Mukharji agreed on a monthly rent of Rs. 6,76,111/- for 11 months and 29 days, as per the agreement dated 29.03.2019. However, Arun Mukharji failed to pay the rent regularly, prompting the complainant to collect it through difficult means. On one occasion, when the complainant visited the clubhouse, the petitioner was present and claimed to have lent Rs. 25,00,000/- (twenty-five lakhs) to Arun Mukharji at 10% interest. The petitioner refused to vacate the premises until he was repaid. The petitioner has caused damage to the clubhouse and refuses to vacate the premises, which led to the present impugned complaint.

5. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence and he is falsely implicated in it. The dispute between the parties is entirely of a civil nature, which has been misrepresented as a criminal offense. The complainant, with malafide intentions and a desire to harass the petitioner and his family members, filed the impugned complaint. Furthermore, the complainant has a malicious intention to renege on the agreement entered into between the parties. Therefore, the application may be allowed.

6. Learned APP has strongly opposed the present application and submits that the petitioner was directly involved in the crime and has repeatedly threatened to kill the complainant. Therefore, the thorough investigation is imperative. He therefore, requested to dismiss the present application.

7. Learned advocate for respondent No.2 has adopted the submission of the learned APP and submitted that the accused has illegally occupied the premises and forcibly evicted the complainant. Furthermore, the petitioner threatened the complainant, thereby fulfilling the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506(2) of the IPC. The matter requires a detailed examination of evidence, including witness testimony and documents, which can only be conducted by the trial court.

Therefore, he requested to dismiss the present application.

8. Having heard learne