Hasmukhbhai Karamsinh Bhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat

Hasmukh D. Suthar, J

Learned advocate Mr. Hardik Brahmbhatt states that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the original complainant and thereby, seeks permission to file his Vakalatnama, which is granted. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

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

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since it is jointly stated at the Bar by learned advocates on both the sides that the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably, this matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.

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 I-CR No.87 of 2005 registed with Kagdapith Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 506(1) and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

Mr. Tejas Barot, Senior Advocate Assisted by Ms. Rhea Chokshi for the applicants has submitted that the FIR alleges the informant's directorship at Hexa International Pvt Ltd. In June 2001, he acquired 12 shops on the 3rd floor of Ghantakarna Market Commercial Market in Sarangpur, Ahmedabad, under the company's name. These shops were developed by Neptune Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. through a contract with Mahalaxmi Bhavan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Originally, the land belonged to Bholabhai Patel, a friend of the informant, who sold it to Mahalaxmi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. The informant conducted the property transactions through Rasikbhai Dhulabhai Patel, an office bearer of the society, and Bholabhai Patel from Neptune Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. All dealings regarding the shops involved Bholabhai, Rasikbhai, and Ramanbhai Dhulabhai Patel, a partner in Apollo Organization and Developer. The sale of the 12 shops was finalized for Rs. 39,53,101/-, with a token amount of Rs. 1101/-given to Rasikbhai, the office bearer of Mahalaxmi Bhavan Cooperative Housing Society, along with cheques for the rest of the amount. The informant purchased five shops for Rs. 17,45,000/- and the remaining seven for Rs. 22,08,101/-. On March 14, 2005, upon visiting the premises, the informant found Rameshbhai occupying shops No. 301 to 305 and using abusive language upon being asked to vacate. Subsequently, attempts to contact Bholabhai, Rasikbhai, and Ramanbhai Dhulabhai Patel were futile as they ignored the informant, thus resulting in the filing of the impugned FIR. However, now the matter is amicably settled between the parties, and the parties have no objection if the complaint is quashed, as no fruitful purpose would be served by proceeding with the matter further.

Learned advocates for the respective parties submitted that during the pendency of proceedings, the parties have settled the dispute amicably and pursuant to such mutual settlement, the original complainant has also filed an Affidavit, which is taken / placed on record. In the Affidavit, the original complainant has categorically stated that the dispute with the applicant/s has been resolved amicably and that he has no objection, if the present proceedings are quashed and set aside since there is no surviving grievance between them.

Having heard learned advocates on both the sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that after investigation, charge-sheet is filed and during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, accused No.1 expired. So far as the allegations leveled against the present applicants is concerned, they received the money from the accused No.1 and 2 and applicant Nos.1 and 2 are nephew of the accused No.1 and applicant No.3 doing job with applicant Nos.1 and 2. The dispute is private in nature. As now the matter is amicably settled between the parties, no fruitful purpose would be served to proceed with the matter qua the present applicants. So far as the Section 506(1) is concerned, the learned Apex Court in the case of Mohammad Wajid and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors., reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624: 2023 INSC 683, has held that: Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 506 - Before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant. (Para 27) 3 Interpretation of Statutes- All penal statutes are to be construed strictly - Court must see that the thing charged is an offence within the plain meaning of the words used and must not strain the words. (Para 19-21)”

In view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of (i) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, (ii) Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, (iii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31, (iv) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and (v) Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC), in the opinion of this Court, the further continuation of criminal proceedings against the applicant/s in relation to the impugned FIR would cause unnecessary harassment to the applicant/s. Further, the continuance of trial pursuant to the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C..

In the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Apex Court has set out the categories of cases in which the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised and held in para 102 as under:

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Art. 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised :

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under sec. 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

In the aforesaid backdrop, complaint is filed. It is necessary to consider whether the power conferred by the High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is warranted. It is true that the powers under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard- and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS & Anr., reported in AIR 2006 SC 2872.

In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned complaint being I-CR No.87 of 2005 registed with Kagdapith Police Station, Ahmedabad as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicant/s herein. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted. If the applicant/s is/are in jail, the jail authority concerned is directed to release the applicant/s forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case.