Gujarat High Court
Ghanshyam @ Rakesh Pandya vs State Of Gujarat & on 19 December, 2013
Author: G.R.Udhwani
Bench: G.R.Udhwani
R/SCR.A/3816/2013 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 3816 of 2013
================================================================
GHANSHYAM @ RAKESH PANDYA....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR N.D.NANAVATI, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR PP
MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MTM HAKIM, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR NIRAJ SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI
Date : 19/12/2013
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Respondents waive service.
2. A complaint AnnexureA dated 09.12.2013 came to be instituted against various persons including the applicant herein alleging offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 506(2) and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"). According to the complaint, the offence was committed between 1999 and 21.09.2013. The applicant is arraigned as accused No.10. While various allegations are made against other accused, insofar as the applicant is concerned, the allegation is that on 21.09.2013, he along with other persons entered into the complainant's land and started a construction and another allegation is that Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Sat Sep 16 20:49:13 IST 2017 R/SCR.A/3816/2013 ORDER he along with one Kamlaben (daughterinlaw of Ramanbhai Mahijibhai Vaghri) who claims to be heirs of one Ramanbhai Mahijibhai Vaghri who died in 1974, to whom he promised Rs.5 lacs and took over the case from one Amarsingh, who was previously helping her and lodged a complaint against the complainant in Gotri Police Station, wherein telephone numbers of said Ghanshyam Pandya were mentioned and he helped Kamlaben recording the statement in the Police Station and on 21.09.2013, Kamlaben, accused No.10 and other unknown persons came to the house of the complainant, threatened him to death unless Rs.1,50,00,000/ for title clearance of the land in relation to a case of Kamlaben and Abdul Vahid Hamidbhai Shaikh was paid to them. Such payment was declined by the complainant. No other allegations are made in the complainant for making out the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC against the petitioner. It is not the case of the complainant that on refusal to pay Rs.1,50,00,000/, accused No.10 took any coercive steps against him and insisted for payment. The amount was not paid and therefore, it is difficult to say that such demand would amount to extortion.
3. Learned APP drew attention of this Court to few statements recorded during the course of investigation. On perusal of the same, prima facie, it cannot be said that such statements are capable enough to involve accused No.10 in the offence in question.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2complainant made vehement efforts to point out that huge land Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Sat Sep 16 20:49:13 IST 2017 R/SCR.A/3816/2013 ORDER racket was going on, wherein several persons were involved. However, except the averments as above in the complaint and except the fact that in the application given to the Police Station, his telephone number was mentioned, no other substantial allegations against the applicant in the complaint are found. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 also invited the attention of this Court to other suits in respect of other lands, filed against the applicant, wherein also similar allegations are made against the applicant. I am afraid, that would not come to the rescue of respondent No.2 for the simple reason that only consideration while hearing the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") would be as to whether on bare reading of the complaint, the case under the provisions alleged is made out or not. Prima facie as discussed above, there are no allegations on which the offence alleged against the applicant can be rested.
5. In above view of the matter, interim relief in terms of Paragraph16(B) qua the applicant is granted.
Direct Service is permitted.
(G.R.UDHWANI, J.) rakesh/ Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Sat Sep 16 20:49:13 IST 2017