Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 13111 of 2014 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA ================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see No the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the No judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as No to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? No ================================================================
GAGJIBHAI DEVABHAI SOLANKI & 3....Applicant(s)
Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
HARSHESH R KAKKAD, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 4 MR RC KAKKAD, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 4 MR JAGDHISH SATAPARA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR RUTURAJ NANAVATI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 R B BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 04/12/2014
['RC KAKKAD', '', 'HARSHESH R KAKKAD', 'PUBLIC PROSECUTOR', 'JAGDHISH SATAPARA']
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants- original accused Nos. 1 to 4 seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying for quashing of the proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 3624 of 2010, pending in the Court of the learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge and the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh.
2. It appears from the materials on record that the respondent No.2 herein lodged a private complaint in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh against the applicants herein, of the offence punishable under Sections 420,427, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
3. It appears that the learned Magistrate took cognizance upon the complaint, and vide order dated 18th November, 2010, issued process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 427, 504 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Such order was passed below Exhibit-1 in Criminal Inquiry No. 180 of 2010.
5. It also appears that being a warrant triable Case, the pre-charge evidence was recorded, and on completion of the same, finally, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 1st October, 2013, decided to frame charge only of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:-
(a) According to the complainant, she is a teacher. She owns a house bearing block No. 49/2 in the Vrundavannagar Society situated at Timbavadi, Junagadh. She purchased the property after availing of a loan facility from the bank on 23rd May, 2006. After the purchase of the house, the complainant was desirous of renovating the same, according to Vastushastra. It is her case that due to weak financial condition and since installments of the loan amount were also to be paid to the bank, she had permitted the applicant No.1, who had come in contact with her husband to park his car and also to take care of the garden. According to the complainant, the applicant No.1, thereafter handed over the possession of the house to the applicants Nos. 3 and 4, who are the husband and wife and are no way concerned with the house of the applicant No.1. Taking undue advantage of the friendship the applicant No.1 fraudulently allowed the applicants Nos. 3 and 4 to get into the house. It is further alleged that on account of such disputes, the applicant No.2, who is a very high handed person had also tried to assault the complainant and her husband. This is the sum and substance of the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2.
7. As stated above, although process was issued of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 427, 504, 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code, yet ultimately, on the basis of precharge evidence led by the complainant, the trial Court ordered to frame charge only of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that the applicants Nos. 1,2 and 3, challenged the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 1st October, 2013, i.e. the order of framing of charge of the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code by filing a Criminal Revision Application. The Revisional Court vide order dated 9th July, 2014, rejected the application.
8. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Revisional Court, the applicants have come up with this application.
9. Mr. R.C. Kakkad, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants vehemently submitted that the entire complaint lodged by the respondent No.2, is palpably false. Mr. Kakkad submits that as a matter of fact the applicants Nos. 3 and 4 are in-occupation of the house as tenants of the property. Mr. Kakkad submits that the applicant No. 3 has filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 359 of 2008, in the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh for a declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent No.2. Mr. K
