Gujarat High Court
Tulsibhai Jibhaibhai Vasava vs State Of Gujarat on 30 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4130/2018 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 4130 of 2018
==========================================================
TULSIBHAI JIBHAIBHAI VASAVA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MINESH D ERINPURIA(8512) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARSHADRAY A DAVE(3461) for the Respondent(s) No.
10,12,14,15,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR SOHAM JOSHI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 11,13
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 30/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside order dated 7.12.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, Ankleshwar in Criminal Revision Application No.16 of 2017.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
2.1 The complaint is filed under section 181,182,114 of the Indian Penal Code before the J.M.F.C Ankleshwar by the petitioner against the respondents herein for supplying false address of the petitioner on oath in Misc Civil Appeal no. 41 of Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 06 23:22:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4130/2018 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined 2015 filed by the present respondents.
2.2 The complaint is registered and the learned J.M.F.C Ankleshwar passed an order of inquiry by court and further ordered the petitioner to produce all related documents. Said enquiry is registered as Inquiry Case No.28 of 2016 vide order dated 18.7.2016.
2.3 Therefore the learned J.M.F.C Ankleshwar verified all the documents and evidence and complaint was registered as Criminal Case No.46 of 2017 u/s 181, 182 and 114 of the IPC and issued summons for attendance of the accused.
2.4 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondents herein has filed Criminal Revision Application No.16 of 2017 before the learned Single Judge, Ankleshwar.
2.5 The learned Session Judge has allowed the revision application and has passed an order and quashed the whole private criminal complaint filed against the respondents herein by the petitioner.
2.6 Hence, present petition.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the learned revisional Court has passed unreasoned order.
He would further submit that in civil proceedings, the private respondents have purposefully filed false address of the petitioner to prevent the petitioner from fighting civil litigation. He would further submit that the learned trial Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 06 23:22:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4130/2018 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined Court has rightly assessed the material on record in enquiry u/s 202 of the Code and was pleased to issue process for the offence punishable u/s 181, 182 and 114 of the IPC. He would further submit that jurisdiction of the learned trial Court while conducting enquiry u/s 202 of the Code is to ascertain that whether the complainant has made out prima facie case and to satisfy whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. He would further submit that it was not within the realm of the Magistrate to enquire into a detailed discussion of the merit or de-merit of the case and therefore, at this juncture, enquiry u/s 202 of the Code is quite limited and in that sense, the learned trial Court is expected to examine prima facie the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint. No rowing or detailed inquiry is permissible. He would further submit that when the learned trial Court has exercised his discretion and made out his opinion that there is ground for proceeding and it is not open for the higher Court to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate.
4. To buttress his submission, Learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Fiona Shrikhande Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2013(3) GLH 107 and submitted that the learned revisional Court while reversing the order of the learned trial Court of issuance of process has exceeded its jurisdiction and substituted its own finding upon the discretionary finding arrived at by the learned trial Court. He would further submit that under the revisional jurisdiction, the learned revisional Court was not expected to decide the Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 06 23:22:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4130/2018 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined issue in sense that the appellate jurisdiction. But in the present case, the learned revisional Court exceeded its jurisdiction and committed serious error in reversing the order passed by the learned trial Court and dismissing the private complaint.
4.1 Upon above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Erinpuria requests to allow this petition by quashing and setting aside the impugned order.
5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Dave for the private respondents would submit that there is bona fide and typographical mistake of the private respondents to write different address. He would further submit that no sooner, the private respondents came to know about typographical mistake in the civil proceedings, they immediately corrected it by way of amendment, with the permission of the Court. He would further submit that the process of civil proceedings was served upon the petitioner on its correct address. He would further submit that even the petitioner fought in the said civil proceedings without raising any question, but then filed private complaint to harass the private respondents. He would further submit that the learned trial Court did not notice provisions of sections 181 and 182 of the IPC nor examine that whether the facts stated in the private complaint is matched with the essential ingredients of the offence u/s 181 and 182 of the IPC. He would further submit that the learned revisional Court, under the revisional jurisdiction, reached to the conclusion that even if private complaint is considered on its face value, it does not attract the offence u/s Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 06 23:22:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4130/2018 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined 181 and 182 of the IPC. Such findings cannot be said to be transgression of jurisdiction. He would further submit that the learned revisional Court has assessed the issue in its true perspective having found error of law and flow in the impugned order of the learned trial Court. He would further submit that since the learned revisional Court has rightly exercised revisional jurisdiction, this Court should not exercise the jurisdiction u/s 226 of the Constitution of India.
5.1 Upon above submissions, learned advocate for the private respondents prays to dismiss the petition.
6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
7. What could be noticed that private complaint for the offence punishable u/s 181 and 182 of the IPC has been filed. Enquiry was conducted by the learned trial Court and after enquiry, issued process u/s 181 and 182 of the IPC. The core contention in the enquiry is that in civil proceedings before the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Ankleshwar against the order passed below Exhs.5 and 20 in Regular Civil Suit No.61 of 2015, respondent No.2 Maheshbhai Vasava on oath supplied wrong address of the petitioner herein. This was alleged to be an offence by the concerned respondent. It is further the contention that supplying wrong address of the petitioner herein for the purpose of process to be issued in civil proceedings was purposefully made to maneuver the learned trial Court and to obtain some favourable order. The learned trial Court issued process after enquiry. The learned revisional Court while setting aside the order of the learned Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 06 23:22:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4130/2018 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined trial Court ascribed the reason in para 7 of its judgment, which reads as under:-
"7) Heard contention for the parties, perused present revision application and record of the subordinate court and order. It is contended by the respondent that the revision application is not maintainable against the order of the Subordinate Court. In this context, looking to the record of the Subordinate court, the complainant i.e. the respondent herein had filed private complaint against the accused i.e. the applicants herein in the subordinate court, wherein the Subordinate Court passed the Order of Court Inquiry as per Section-202 of the Cr.P.C. and after recording the depositions of the complainant and the witnesses and registering the complaint, it was ordered to issue process against the accused for the offenses under Section-181, 182, 114 of the I.P.C. Looking to the provisions of Section-
397(2) of the Cr.P.C., revisional power cannot be used in any appeal, inquiry, trial or in the interim order passed in any trial or other proceedings. The subordinate court has registered the complaint against the accused and ordered to issue process. Therefore, the order of the subordinate court cannot be considered as interim order and this court has power of revision under Section-397 and 399 of the Cr.P.C. against the said order. Therefore, the argument of Ld. Advocate for the respondent is not tenable. Ld. Advocate for the respondent has contended that the applicants have filed Stay Application as per Section-389(1) of the Cr.P.C., which is not as per the provisions of law. Stay application can be submitted in criminal appeal under this section. Such application cannot be submitted in this manner in the revision application. It is a fact that a stay application can be filed as per Section- 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. in the matter of Criminal Appeal filed against the order of the Subordinate court. Order to stay the implementation of order can be passed in the revision application as per Section-397 of the Cr.P.C. It cannot be said that this court has no Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 06 23:22:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4130/2018 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined power merely because the Section-389(1) is written instead of Section-397 and it also cannot be said that it is not as per the provisions of law. Ld. Advocate for the respondent has contended that the applicants herein had filed Misc. Appeal No.41/15 in the Hon'ble District Court against the order passed in R.C. No.61/15 and though the address of the respondent no.1 was mentioned therein as Village: Pathar, Vasava Faliyu, Taluka: Valiya, District: Bharuch and the respondent no.1 was staying there since birth, and the appellants i.e. the applicants herein were also residing there, in order to deprive the respondent no.1 from his rights, the address was wrongly mentioned as 'G-25, Shrinathji Duplex Society, Fateganj, Vadodara'. The appellants have stated that it as typographical error or clerical error, which is fabricated version. Looking to the clarification made by the applicants in the context of the said arguments, the applicants have mentioned the address of the respondent no.1 as 'G-25, Shrinathji Duplex Society, Fateganj, Vadodara' instead of 'Village: Pathar, Vasava Faliyu, Taluka: Valiya, District: Bharuch' through oversight and due to typographical error. Actually, Revaben @ Renukaben Jibhai Vasa W/o. Kanubhai Shanabhai Gohil - the plaintiff no.2 of the suit stays at the said address and therefore, the said mistake is happened and when it was notice, an application to correct the said new address was submitted. The applicants have not stated any fact in the affidavit in the matter of appeal that the respondents are not residing at the address of 'Vasava Faliyu, Pathar, Taluka: Valiya, District:
Bharuch'. The applicants have not stated any fact regarding the same in the facts of the appeal or affidavit or it has not been stated that the respondent is not residing at Vasava Faliyu, Pathar, Taluka:
Valiya, District: Bharuch. Looking to the provision of Section-181 of the I.P.C. herein, "Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or affirmation to state the truth on any subject to any public servant or other person authorized by law to administer such oath or affirmation, makes, to such public servant or other person as aforesaid, touching that subject, any Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 06 23:22:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4130/2018 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, shall be the guilty for the offence." Further, considering the provision of the Section-182 of the I.P.C., "Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause such public servant - (1) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or (2) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person, shall be held guilty under this section." The applicants herein have mentioned the address of the respondent no.1 as "G-25, Shrinathji Duplex Society, Fateganj, Vadodara". The applicants have made clarification for the same that it is due to typographical error and Revaben @ Renukaben Jibhai Vasa W/o. Kanubhai Shanabhai Gohil - the plaintiff no.2 stays at the said address. Therefore, the said address has been written due to typographical error and through oversight. This clarification of the applicants herein can be accepted, because when they came to know about the said fact, they immediately submitted an application to rectify the address and to serve the summons at the new address. Moreover, it does not appear that Tulsibhai Jibhaibhai Vasava, the respondent herein has not raised any objection that he is not residing at Village: Pathar, Taluka: Valiya, District: Bharuch. The applicants herein have written the address of Vadodara Fateganj and also provided the said information to the Public Servant and the respondents herein have not stated any fact as to what loss or damage is caused due to the same. There is a dispute between the parties regarding the agricultural lands situated in the outskirts of village: Pathar. The house in which the respondent no.1 - Tulsibhai stays, is not in a dispute in the suit. Therefore, it does not appear in the present suit that the provisions of Section-181 and 182 of the I.P.C. are not violated. Thus, there is no sufficient reason against the accused herein in the matter of this Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 06 23:22:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4130/2018 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined complaint to take further action. Therefore, considering aforesaid reasons and circumstances, it can be said that the order of the subordinate court is inappropriate, illegal and unfair. Therefore, Issue nos.1 and 2 are replied in 'affirmative' and following order is hereby passed pertaining to the Issue no.3."
8. Apt to note that the learned revisional Court believed that no wrong address has been supplied, but it was typographical error on the part of the respondents herein. Later on, having been realized that typographical error took place in pleadings, amendment was sought and carried out with the permission of the Court and correct address of the petitioner herein was pleaded in civil proceedings and the process was issued in the correct address of the petitioner. Upon this reason, the learned revisional Court believed that the learned trial Court has wrongly issued process for the offence punishable u/s 181 and 182 of the IPC.
9. Section 181 of the IPC is in regards to false statement on oath or affirmation to public servant or person authorised to administer an oath or affirmation. Whereas section 182 of the IPC is in regards to false information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person.
10. In the present case, what the petitioner has stated is G 25, Shrinathji Duplex Society, Fateganj, Vadodara being address of the complainant, but after realizing that it was typographical mistake, immediately, the petitioner moved the learned revisional Court to rectify the error and in turn, the Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 06 23:22:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4130/2018 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined learned revisional Court permitted the same and accordingly, address of the complainant was rectified. The learned revisional Court also believed that it was not false statement on oath or affirmation to public servant, but it is believed to be typographical error. This is specific finding of the learned revisional Court that the address of the complainant was stated in the pleadings of the appeal and not on oath. The learned revisional Court has also believed that no affidavit has been filed by the petitioner stating false statement in regard to address of the complainant.
11. Learned advocate Mr. Erinpuriya could not point out that by affidavit or statement on oath, the petitioner has made false statement. The learned trial Court has completely swayed away by the inquiry without analyzing the fact that the learned revisional Court in appeal proceedings, permitted the appellant to rectify the document and to substitute the address of the complainant. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned revisional Court has committed no error to exercise jurisdiction and to quash and set aside the order of the learned trial Court. It is true that the Magistrate is required to enquire into the detailed discussion of merits and de-merits of the case while undertaking inquiry u/s 202 of the Code and is expected to embargo upon detailed discussion of merits and de-merits of the case, has to consider the inherent probability apparent on the statement made in the complaint. It is noticeable that the complainant in the complainant did not mention that the learned revisional Court has permitted the petitioner to substitute the new address by allowing amendment in the appeal memo and and that the appeal Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 06 23:22:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4130/2018 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined memo is not supplied on oath or affirmation to public servant. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court has exercised its jurisdiction beyond settled provisions of law and the same has been rightly discarded by the learned revisional Court.
12. In the result, present petition fails and stands dismissed. Notice discharged.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SHEKHAR P. BARVE Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 06 23:22:33 IST 2025