Gujarat High Court
Pankajbhai Maheshbhai Khatri vs State Of Gujarat on 1 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21238/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 21238 of 2014
==========================================================
PANKAJBHAI MAHESHBHAI KHATRI & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NARENDRA K AMIN(9506) for the petitioners(s) No. 1,2
MR TATTVAM K PATEL(5455) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR CHINTAN DAVE, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 01/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R.No.I-184 of 2014 registered with Sanand Police Station for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 114 of Indian Penal Code and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners herein.
2. In an FIR, initially, offence under Sections 406, 420, 114 of the IPC, but later on, offence u/s 120B of the IPC was added.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:52:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21238/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined plain reading of the FIR does not attract offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 114 of the IPC. Even no essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust or entrustment arose. He would further submit that according to the FIR, Mr. Saurin Jyotindra Kavi, as of now has expired, has sold five parcels of land by registered sale deed and revenue entry was also mutated in the revenue records in favour of the complainant. The sale consideration was also passed on to Mr. Saurin Jyotindra Kavi. He would further submit that on 28.1.2011, the very same person i.e. Mr. Saurin Jyotindra Kavi executed one Banakhat and power of attorney in favour of the petitioners and since it came to the knowledge of the petitioners that parcels of land for which agreement to sell was executed in favour of the petitioner, has been sold to the complainant by way of registered sale deed by Mr. Saurin Jyotindra Kavi, Special Civil Suit No.974 of 2011 was filed by the petitioners for specific performance of the agreement to sell and for cancellation of sale deed. He would further submit that much later in the year 2014, as a counterblast, present FIR is filed. He would further submit that it is a case where the petitioners are also cheated by deceased Mr. Saurin Jyotindra Kavi, who, despite having executed agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner, sold parcels of land in favour o the complainant. He would further submit that it is a unique case where subsequent purchaser filed FIR against the first purchaser as well as seller for the offence punishable u/s 406 and 420 of the IPC. He would further submit that no privity of contract exists between the complainant and the petitioners and in view of that, since the FIR is even remotely not connecting Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:52:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21238/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined with the essential ingredients of offence u/s 405 and 415 of the IPC being criminal breach of trust or cheating. He has tendered death certificate of Mr. Saurin Jyotindra Kavi, which is taken on record.
3.1. Upon above submissions, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted to allow the application and quash the FIR.
4. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent original complainant referring to page 102 would submit that the investigating officer has added section 120B of the IPC in the offence, which indicates that there is larger conspiracy. He would further submit that Mr. Saurin Jyotindra Kavi conspired with the petitioners and after selling parcels of the land to the complainant, got up agreement to sell, possession agreement, power of attorney in favour of the petitioners etc and then in connivance with each other, they filed Special Civil Suit No.974 of 2011 to cloud the title of the complainant, which prima facie indicates that there is criminal breach of trust and cheating. He would further submit that the petition is filed at the initial stage of investigation and therefore, the same may not be entertained and the investigating officer may be permitted to investigate further in the matter. Upon such submission, he prays to dismiss the petition.
4.1 Learned APP after adopting argument of learned advocate for the complainant prays to pass necessary orders.
Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:52:02 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21238/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined
5. At the outset, I may refer to the order dated 15.10.2019 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court as under:-
"The applicants herein to alleged are have an agreement to sell prior in point of time to the sale-deed executed in favour of the complainant by original accused No.1. The complainant wants to hold liable the applicants for an offence under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that, they have filed civil suit against the purchaser, as also the seller. At any rate, neither the offence of cheating or of criminal breach of trust, prima-facie, is established against the applicants.
Hence, Rule.
Mr.K.P.Raval, learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of Respondent No.1-State and Mr.Tattvam Patel, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.2.
By way of interim relief, investigation into an offence being C.R.No.I-184 of 2014 registered with Sanand Police Station qua the applicants is stayed till further orders."
6. Even at the level of prima facie stage, it was impressed upon the Coordinate Bench of this Court that no offence u/s 406 and 420 is made out. Be that as it may, if we examine the FIR, it is a unique FIR, where gross delay of three years is visible. No privity of contract exists between the petitioner and the complainant. According to the FIR, the complainant has purchased parcels of land from Mr. Saurin Jyotindra Kavi by passing sale consideration and subsequently also, revenue entries were mutated in favour of the complainant. The agreement to sell was executed on 28.1.2011, however, it was not disclosed to the complainant. Even, it does not execute when the complainant has issued notice in the daily newspaper Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:52:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21238/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined in regards to title clearance certificate, but later on, since the petitioners came to know about execution of the sale deed in favour of the complainant, they have filed aforestated Special Civil Suit for relief of specific performance and cancellation of sale deed. Perhaps, filing of Special Civil Suit by the petitioner has prompted the complainant to file the impugned FIR. Therefore, the complaint appears to be counterblast to the civil suit. Moreover, since there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the complainant, invocation of sections 406 and 420 of the IPC against the petitioners is abuse of process of law.
7. The FIR does not speak that how and in which way, the petitioners and Mr. Saurin Jyotindra Kavi were hand in glow with each other and conspired to cloud the title of the original complainant. Even otherwise, filing of civil suit would not amount to clouding the title, which successfully passed in favour of the petitioners.
8. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. B.Bhajanlal & ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, the Hon'ble Apex Court summed up the proposition of law, which reads as under:-
"(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 ins the F.I.R. and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the code.Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:52:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21238/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined (3) Where, the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same donot disclose the commission of any offence and make out the case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S.155(2) of the Code.
(5) Whether, the allegations made in the F.I.R. 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 bare engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) toi the institution 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 malafide 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."
8.1 The findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 1,3 and 7 are attracted in the present case. In view of above, present petition deserves consideration.
9. In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned FIR being C.R.No.I-184 of 2014 registered with Sanand Police Station as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua the petitioners Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:52:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21238/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined herein. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
10. The aforesaid findings and observations are limited only for the purpose of deciding present matter and it shall not influence any other litigation between the parties.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SHEKHAR P. BARVE Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:52:02 IST 2025