Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1108

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
M. K. THAKKER, J.

Hiteshbhai Babulal Ramani & Anr. - Applicants
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Anr. – Respondents
R/Criminal MISC. Application (For Quashing & Set Aside Fir/Order) No. 20950 of 2021 With Criminal MISC. Application (Direction) No. 1 of 2022
Decided On : 13-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicants : Mr Laxmansinh M. Zala
For the Respondents:Senior Advocate Mr. R.R. Marshall with Mr Daifraz Havewalla, Mr. Ronak Rawal, APP

The court possesses limited inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings during investigation; intercession is impermissible where allegations prima facie establish cognizable offences, as the court must avoid conducting a mini-trial or evaluating disputed evidence before the investigative agency completes its statutory function.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent jurisdiction - Quashing of first information report - Scope and ambit - High Court should not interfere with investigation if allegations disclose prima facie commission of cognizable offence - Court not to conduct mini-trial or evaluate evidence during pre-trial stage. (Paragraphs 8.1, 8.2, 8.6)

(B) Land Grabbing Act - Definition of land grabbing - Unlawful occupation - Whether proceedings qualify as purely civil dispute - Criminal law cannot be short-circuited where factual foundation for investigation exists. (Paragraphs 5, 7, 8)

Facts of the case:
The applicants filed for quashment of a first information report registered for offences involving fraud, forgery of title documents, and unlawful land occupation. The original owner alleged that the applicants, in conspiracy with others, obtained signatures on a power of attorney and blank documents under the guise of a loan agreement to fraudulently transfer property. The applicants argued that the dispute is purely civil in nature, emphasizing their status as bona fide purchasers who had already initiated separate civil proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the applicants failed to explain suspicious circumstances, including the execution of a separate transfer agreement despite payment having been alleged as made earlier, and the fact that physical possession remained with the original owner. Given the existence of a prima facie case involving detailed allegations of forgery and financial deception, it is not appropriate to stifle the police investigation at a preliminary stage.

Issues: Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings involving allegations of property-related fraud where the defense claims the dispute is essentially civil in nature.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that at the investigation stage, it should not engage in a mini-trial or determine the ultimate truthfulness of allegations. When a complaint discloses the prima facie ingredients of cognizable offences, the statutory authority of the police to investigate must not be obstructed unless the allegations are inherently improbable or barred by law.

Result: Application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background involving alleged land grabbing and fraudulent power of attorney. (Para 1 , 2)
2. parties' contentions regarding the legitimacy of sale and criminal intent. (Para 3)
3. judicial assessment of evidence and statutory definitions of land grabbing. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
4. criteria for invoking section 482 crpc for quashing firs. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. final dismissal of the application for quashing the fir. (Para 11)

JUDGMENT :

M. K. THAKKER, J.

1. Admit. Learned senior advocate Mr.R.R.Marshall along with learned advocate Mr.Daifraz Havewalla waive service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent no.2.

2. This application is filed under section 482 of the Cr.P.C for quashment of the FIR being 11214046211967 of 2021 registered at Surat Rural Police Station, District: Surat for the offences punishable under section 3, 4(1)(3), 5(a), 5(b), 5(e) of Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition)(Ordinance) Act, 2020 and sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code. As per the allegations made by the complainant namely Narendrabhai Somabhai Patel, six accused persons who are named in the FIR including the present applicant who are been arraigned as accused no.1 and 2, have tried to grab the land of the applicant and commit the offence alleged in the FIR, in the following manner:

2.1. The complainant was having his land in co-ownership with his elder brother in survey no.246B situated at Moje Vanesa, District: Surat. In the month of April 2016, due to ongoing renovation work, the complainant, with the aid of one Nileshbhai Contractor, had contacted his friend Amit Rana and Inderkumar Jalebiwala. At the instance of the complainant, the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- at the interest of 2% was lent to the complainant. Again in the month of May, 2018 for borrowing some more amount, with the aid of said Inderkumar and Amit Rana, the complainant came into the contact of Hirenbhai Samjibhai and he conveyed that he has to take the amount of Rs.30,00,000/- from one builder and as he could not take the said amount in his account therefore it would be transferred in the account of the first informant and after retaining his requirement of Rs.10,00,000/- the remaining amount would be returned to Hirenbhai. On being consented the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was decided to be transferred in the account of complainant and Rs.15,00,000/- in the account of Kiranbhai, who is the brother of the first informant. At that time, it was decided to execute the loan agreement with regard to borrowing amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. Accordingly the first informant and his brother were taken before the Registrar on 02.06.2018 and the signature was obtained on the Power of Attorney under the pretext of having loan agreement. Along with the same, the signatures were taken on some blank papers by conveying that if any modifications would be made then again he would not be troubled for his signatures. On execution of the said document, Hirenbhai had informed that cheques to be collected from Amit Rana and he would accompany the complainant at the time of depositing the said cheque and the amount would be withdrawn and has to be given to Amit Rana. As per the pre-fixation plan, the first informant, Hiren Samjibhai and Amit Rana went to Bank of Baroda at Vanesa Branch. Amit Rana and Rahul Inderkumar Jalebiwala and his nephew namely Munna came into the car along with one lady inside the bank and had talked to the Bank Manager and thereafter informed the first informant that the cheque to the tune of Rs.9,50,000/- was given to the Bank Manager and after withdrawing the amount, the complainant was directed to hand over the same to the said people who are waiting outside the bank. On being handed over the said amount, the complainant has insisted to issue receipt or execute some writings and it was conveyed that said writings would remain with accused persons as it was loan which is given to the first informant. Again the first informant asked for t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document