Harjinder Singh Chanchad Singh Sachdev ... vs State Of Gujarat & on 11 December, 2014

[Cites 32, Cited by 3]

Gujarat High Court

Harjinder Singh Chanchad Singh Sachdev ... vs State Of Gujarat & on 11 December, 2014

Bench: J.B.Pardiwala

      R/CR.MA/6327/2012                                    CAV JUDGMENT



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

     CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
                          FIR/ORDER) NO. 6327 of 2012
                                     WITH
             CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 11550 of 2013


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
 ================================================================
1    Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see              No
     the judgment ?

2    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                              No

3    Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the             No
     judgment ?

4    Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as No
     to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any
     order made thereunder ?

5    Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?                  No

================================================================
    HARJINDER SINGH CHANCHAD SINGH SACHDEV & 2....Applicant(s)
                            Versus
              STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 3
MS SM AHUJA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================

          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

                               Date : 11 /12 /2014


                               CAV JUDGMENT

Page 1 of 20 R/CR.MA/6327/2012 CAV JUDGMENT

1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicantsoriginal accused Nos.1 to 3 seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying for quashing of the proceedings of the Criminal Case No.600 of 2011, pending in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.15, Ahmedabad.

2. The facts giving rise to this application may be summarized as under:

(a) The respondent No.2original complainant filed a private complaint in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.15, Ahmedabad, against seven accused persons of the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 471, 384, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(b) The original accused Nos.1 to 3 are before me by way of the present application. The applicant No.1 is the brother of the complainant, the applicant No.2 is the mother of the complainant and the applicant No.3 is the sisterinlaw of the complainant i.e. the wife of the applicant No.1. The dispute amongst the family members is with respect to a bungalow in which the complainant claims that she has a share.

3. According to the complainant, the property is situated at the Jaihind Society, Maninagar. The Page 2 of 20 R/CR.MA/6327/2012 CAV JUDGMENT bungalow was purchased by the father of the complainant namely Shri Chanchadsingh sachdev from one Shri Vedprakash Sharma. Her father passed away in the year 1985. On demise of late Shri. Chanchadsingh Sachdev the rights in the property devolved upon three persons, namely (1) applicant No.2, as the mother of the complainant, (2) applicant No.1, as the brother of the complainant and the complainant herself as the daughter of late Shri.Chanchadsingh Sachdev.

4. It is her case that despite the fact that she has an equal share in the property, the applicants herein, behind her back, sold of the terrace part of the bungalow to one Shri Prakash Purusottam Das on 21st May 1989. Shri Prakash Purusottam Das Loda is the owner of the Jaihind Land Development Corporation. She has alleged that by selling off the terrace rights, the applicants pocketed a huge amount thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to the applicants.

5. It is her case that in connection with the transaction between the applicants and Shri Prakash Purusottamdas Loda, she filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 1650/1990 in the Court of the learned City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad. According to her, being a dispute amongst brother, sister and mother, she entered into a settlement outside the Court and pursuant to such compromise, she withdrew the Regular Civil Suit No.1750 of 1990 from the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. According to the complainant, the settlement was Page 3 of 20 R/CR.MA/6327/2012 CAV JUDGMENT reduced into writing and according to the terms of the settlement, she gave up her share in the bungalow so far as the terrace part was concerned as the same had already been sold away by the applicants in favour of Shri Purusottambai Loda. However, it was understood between the applicants and herself that she would have an equal share in the ground floor portion of the bungalow.

6. According to the complainant, despite such understanding which was reduced into writing, the applicants disposed of the property in favour of the accused Nos. 4 to 7 named in the complaint.

7. The complainant, therefore, had to file a Regular Civil Suit No.1547 of 2009 in the Court of the learned City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad, for a declaration and permanent injunction. In the said suit, the complainant has prayed for a declaration that she has 50 per cent share in the ground floor of the house and the defendant be restrained from transferring the property. According to her, the Civil Court passed an interim order in terms of para (10) of the interim injunction application.

8. It is the case of the complainant that despite there being an order of injunction passed by the City Civil Court, the same was breached by the applicants herein, who are the defendants in the said Civil Suit and, therefore, the complainant had to file an application under Order 39 Rule 2(a) of the Civil Page 4 of 20 R/CR.MA/6327/2012 CAV JUDGMENT Procedure Code for the disobedience of the order of injunction.

9. It also appears that the accused Nos.4 to 7 named in the complaint claim to be the bonafide purchasers of the property for value without notice and they have also filed a Regular Civil Suit No.1663 of 2009 in the Court of the learned City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad.

10. According to the complainant, the applicants and the other coaccused have committed an offence of cheating and forgery and have also committed an offence of the criminal breach of trust.

11. It appears that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance upon the complaint and ordered magisterial inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

12. On completion of the inquiry under Section 202 of the Code, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.15, Ahmedabad, thought fit to issue process against the applicants of the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

13. The order dated 2nd July 2011 passed by the learned Magistrate makes it clear that the Court did not issue process of the offence punishable under Sections 406, 465, 467, 471 and 384 of IPC as prayed for by the complainant.

Page 5 of 20 R/CR.MA/6327/2012 CAV JUDGMENT

14. It appears that on 11th May 2012, notice was ordered to be issued to the respondents, and in the meantime, adinterim relief in terms of para 8(C) was also granted. On 21st February 2013, rule was issued in the matter.

15. Mr. Ashish M. Dagli, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants vehemently submitted that the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Mr. Dagli submits that although the complainant claims that she has a share in the disputed property, yet the Civil Court has to determine her right or share in the property. Mr.Dagli submits that a pure civil dispute is sought to be given a colour of a criminal offence. Mr. Dagli submits that the respondent No.2 is a married lady, and whether after the marriage she can claim any share in the property of her father, is an issue which the Civil Court has yet to decide. Mr. Dagli submits that having regard to the facts of the case and the allegations levelled in the complaint, none of the ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are spelt out.

16. In such circumstances, Mr. Dagli prays that the proceedings of the Criminal Case pending as on today against the applicants deserve to be quashed.

17. On the other hand, Ms. Sunita Ahuja, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2, Page 6 of 20 R/CR.MA/6327/2012 CAV JUDGMENT has vehemently opposed this application submitting that the complaint discloses commission of an offence of criminal breach of trust as well as cheating. Ms. Ahuja submits that her client has a share in the property is not in dispute because of the settlement reduced into writing duly signed by both the parties. She submits that it is only on account of such settlement that the Regular Civil Suit No. 1750 of 1990 was withdrawn by the complainant. Ms. Ahuja submits that after such settlement if the applicants have disposed of the property in favour of the other coaccused, then it definitely amounts to criminal breach of trust and cheating. Ms. Ahuja submits that this application deserves to be rejected and if the applicants are of the view that no case is made out against them, then they may file appropriate application before the trial Court for discharge.

18. In such circumstances, Ms. Ahuja prays that there being no merit in this application, the same deserves to be rejected.

19. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is, whether the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed.

20. As observed earlier, it is not in dispute that the learned Magistrate thought fit to issue process only of the offence punishable under Section 420 of Page 7 of 20 R/CR.MA/6327/2012 CAV JUDGMENT the Indian Penal Code i.e. cheating. Since, Ms. Ahuja has laid much stress on the offence of the criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, I may look into the same, although the learned Magistrate has not issued the process of the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

21. The following facts are not in dispute:

(a) the complainant claims share in the ground floor of the disputed property.

(b) her claim is based on her right as a daughter on the demise of her father dying intested.

(c) in the year 1990, a Civil Suit was filed by her being Regular Civil Suit No. 1757 of 1990 for a declaration that she has a share in the property. The said suit was withdrawn on account of an out of court settlement between herself, her mother and brother.

(d) the applicants have disposed of even the ground floor of the bungalow and for which the complainant has filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 1547 of 2009, which is pending as on today in the Court of the City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad.

22. Thus, the foundation laid by the complainant for filing the complaint appears to be the out of the court settlement reduced into writing, by which it was Page 8 of 20 R/CR.MA/6327/2012 CAV JUDGMENT decided that day the ground floor part of the bungalow is sold, the complainant would get 50 per cent share out of the sale proceeds. According to the complainant, the applicants have resiled from the said settlement.

23. In the Regular Civil Suit No.1547 of 2009, the complainant has prayed for a declaration as regards her 50 per cent share in the ground floor of the bungalow. This suit is yet to be adjudicated.

24. The offences of criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) and cheating (Section 420 IPC) have specific ingredients. In order to constitute a criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC).

1) There must be entrustment with person for property or dominion over the property, and

2) The person entrusted :

a) dishonestly misappropriated or converted property to his own use, or

b) dishonestly used or disposed of the property or willfully suffers any other person so to do in violation

i) any direction of law prescribing the method in which the trust is discharged and Page 9 of 20 R/CR.MA/6327/2012 CAV JUDGMENT

ii) of legal contract touching the discharge of trust (see: S.W.P. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar, (2002)1 SCC

241) : (AIR 2001 SC 2960).

Similarly, in respect of an offence under section 420 IPC, the essential ingredients are :

1) deception of any person, either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or by omission;

2) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property, or

3) the consent that any persons shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit (see: Harmanpeet Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, (2009)7 SCC 712 : (2009) Cr.L.J. 3462 (SC) ) Further, in both sections, mens rea i.e. intention to defraud or the dishonest intention must be present from the very beginning or inception without which either of these sections cannot be invoked.

25. Every act of breach of trust may not be resulted in a penal offence of criminal breach of trust unless there is evidence of manipulating act of fraudulent Page 10 of 20 R/CR.MA/6327/2012 CAV JUDGMENT misappropriation. An act of breach of trust involves a civil wrong in respect of which the person may seek his remedy for damages in civil courts but any breach of trust with a mens rea gives rise to a criminal prosecution as well. It has been held in Hart Prasad Chamaria v. B.K. Surekha and others, reported in 1973(2) SCC 823 as under :

We have heard Mr. Maheshwarit on behalf of the appellant and are of the opinion that no case has been made out against the respondents under Section 420 Indian Penal Code. For the purpose of the present appeal, we would assume that the various allegations of fact which have been made in the complaint by the appellant are correct. Even after making that allowance, we find that the complaint does riot disclose the commission of any offence on the part of the respondents under Section 420 Indian Penal Code. There is nothing in the complaint to show that the respondents had dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time the appellant parted with Rs. 35.000/ There is also nothing to indicate that the respondents induced the appellant to pay them Rs. 35.000/ by deceiving him. It is further not the case of the appellant that a representation was made, the respondents knew the same to be false. The fact that the respondents subsequently did not abide by their commitment that they would show the appellant to be the proprietor of Drang Transport Corporation and would also render accounts to him in the month of December might create civil liability on the respondents for the offence of cheating.

26. To put it in other words, the case of cheating the dishonest intention starts with the very inception of the transaction. But in the case of criminal breach of trust, the person who comes into possession of the movable property receives it legally, but illegally retains it or converts it to his own use against the terms of the contract. Then the question is, in a case like this, whether the retention is with dishonest intention or not. Whether the retention involves criminal breach of trust or only a civil liability would depend upon the facts of Page 11 of 20 R/CR.MA/6327/2012 CAV JUDGMENT each case.

27. The distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating are fine one. In case of cheating, it depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement, which may be judged by a subsequent conduct but for this the subsequent conduct is not the sole test but mere breach of contract which cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right from the beginning of the transaction i.e. the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore, it is his intention, which is the gist of the offence. Whereas, for the criminal breach of trust, the property must have been entrusted to the accused or he must have dominion over it. The property in respect of which the offence after breach of trust has been committed must be either the property of some person other than the accused or the beneficial interest in or ownership of it must be of some other person. The accused must hold that property on trust of such other person. But the offence, i.e. the offence of breach of trust and cheating involve dishonest intention but they are mutually exclusive and different in basic concept. There is a distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating. For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of entrustment. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach of Page 12 of 20 R/CR.MA/6327/2012 CAV JUDGMENT trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the property and he dishonestly misappropriated the same. Whereas, in case of cheating, the offender practices fraudulent or dishonest to induce with another person to deliver the property. In such situation, both the offences cannot coexist simultaneously.

28. I may quote with profit a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nageshwar Prasad Singh alias Sinha v. Narayan Singh, AIR 1999 SC 1480. In the said case, the allegation of the prosecution was that an agreement was signed between the complainant respondent and the appellant whereby some land was agreed to be sold by the appellant to the complainants on a consideration, and allegedly a part thereof was paid as earnest money, the balance being payable in the manner indicated in the deed. The most important term in the deed was that possession of the plot would stand transferred to the complainants and possession in fact was delivered to the complainants over which they made certain constructions. The complaint was laid on the basis that the appellant had cheated the complainants of the sum of money they had paid as earnest money as his subsequent conduct reflected that he was not willing to complete the bargain for which the complainants had to file a suit for specific performance which was pending in the civil court. Held, that latter part of illustration

(g) to Section 415, I.P.C. illustrates that at the time when agreement for sell was executed, it could have, in no event, been termed dishonestly so as to Page 13 of 20 R/CR.MA/6327/2012 CAV JUDGMENT hold that the complainants were cheated of the earnest money, which they passed to the appellant as part consideration and possession of the total amount involved in the bargain was passed over to the complainant/respondent and which remained in their possession. Now it is left to imagine who would be interested for dealing the matter for completing the bargain when admittedly the complainants have not performed their part in making full payment. The matter was, therefore, before the civil court in this respect. The liability, if any, arising out by breaching thereof was civil in nature and not criminal. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and complaint proceedings were quashed.

29. It was further held by the Supreme Court in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, AIR 2000 SC 2341 at Pp. 234546 of para 16) as below :

"15. In determining the question it has to be kept in mind that the distinction between, mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but for this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore, it is the intention, which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to keep up promise subsequently such a culpable intention right at the beginning, that is, when he made the promise cannot be presumed."

30. In All Cargo Movers (I) Pvt. Ltd. & others v. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain & another, JT 2007 (12) SC 345, Page 14 of 20 R/CR.MA/6327/2012 CAV JUDGMENT the Apex Court quashed a criminal proceeding on the premise that the allegations contained in complaint were wholly inconsistent with the pleadings in a collateral civil proceeding. It held as follows :

"17. We are of the opinion that the allegations made in the complaint petition, even if given face value and taken to be correct in its entirety, do not disclose an offence. For the said purpose, This Court may not only take into consideration the admitted facts but it is also permissible to look into the pleadings of the plaintiff respondent No.1 in the suit. No allegation whatsoever was made against the appellants herein in the notice. What was contended was negligence and/or breach of contract on the part of the carriers and their agent. Breach of contract simplicitor does not constitute an offence. For the said purpose, allegations in the complaint petition must disclose the necessary ingredients therefor. Where a civil suit is pending and the complaint petition has been filed one year after filing of the civil suit, we may for the purpose of finding out as to whether the said allegations are prima facie cannot notice the correspondences exchanged by the parties and other admitted documents. It is one thing to say that the Court at this juncture would not consider the defence of the accused but it is another thing to say that for exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, it is impermissible also to look to the admitted documents. Criminal proceedings should not be encouraged, when it is found to be mala fide or otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court. Superior Courts while exercising this power should also strive to serve the ends of justice."

31. In K.L.E. Society & others v. Siddalingesh, (2008) 4 SCC 541, on a similar issue, the Supreme Court quashed a criminal proceeding labeling it to be an abuse of process of Court as the allegations contained in the complaint ran contrary to the averments made in the petition filed under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Apex Court held as follows :

"7. One thing is clear on reading of High Court's reasoning that the High Court came to the conclusion that deductions were made without any rhyme and reason and without any basis. That was not the case of the complainant. On the other hand, it tried to make out a case that the deduction was made with an object. That Page 15 of 20 R/CR.MA/6327/2012 CAV JUDGMENT obviously, was the foundation to substantiate claim of entrustment. On a close reading of the complaint it is clear that the ingredients of Sections 403, 405 and 415 do not exist. The statement made in the complaint runs contrary to the averments made in the petition in terms of Section 33(C) (2)."

32. In State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) SCC (Cri.) 415, the Supreme Court held that the High Court could take into account materials of "unimpeachable character of sterling quality" while exercising its inherent powers to quash a criminal proceeding and observed as follows : "29. Regarding the argument of accused having to face the trial despite being in a position to produce material of unimpeachable character of sterling quality, the width of the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code and Article 226 of Constitution is unlimited whereunder in the interests of justice the High Court can make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice within the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lals case.

33. In Vijaya Rao v. State of Rajasthan & another (2005) SCC (Cri.) 1600, the Supreme Court held that merely using expressions like "fraudulent representation" and "malafide intention" does not give rise to an inference that the complaint discloses the ingredients of the offence of cheating.

34. In Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & others v. State of Bihar & another (2000) SCC (Cri.) 786, the Supreme Court succinctly laid down the distinction between breach of contract in one hand and the offence of cheating in the other.

"15. In determining the question it has to be kept in mind that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time to inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but for this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of Page 16 of 20 R/CR.MA/6327/2012 CAV JUDGMENT contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to keep up promise subsequently such a culpable intention right at the beginning, that is, when he made the promise cannot be presumed."

35. Criticizing the institution of malicious and frivolous criminal proceeding against individuals, the Supreme Court in PEPSI Foods Ltd. & another v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., (1998) SCC (Cri.) 1400, held as follows:

"28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. it is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."

36. In B.Suresh Yadav v. Sharifa Bee & another, JT (2007) 12 SC 341, the Supreme Court again highlighted the distinction between a mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating.

37. In Inder Mohan Goswami & another v. State of Uttaranchal & others, (2007)12 SCC 1, the Supreme Court analysed inherent powers of the High Court under Page 17 of 20 R/CR.MA/6327/2012 CAV JUDGMENT Section 482 as follows :

"23. This court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit of courts' powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. Every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised:

(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and

(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

24. Inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute."

38. In my view, Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code has no application worth the name even if the entire allegations levelled by the complainant are accepted as true. The learned Magistrate could have examined the complaint from the view point of the offence of the criminal breach of trust as defined and explained under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code and punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. However, in my view no case of even criminal breach of trust is made out. The complainant will have to obtain a decree from the Civil Court as regards her share in the property and it is only after such declaration is granted by the Civil Court, then probably the picture would be clear. Although the complainant has placed strong reliance on the settlement between herself and the applicants reduced into writing, yet the same has Page 18 of 20 R/CR.MA/6327/2012 CAV JUDGMENT been disputed by the applicants. In my opinion, mere breach of the terms of the settlement, even if believed, would not constitute a criminal offence so as to prosecute the applicants.

39. In the result, this application is allowed. The further proceedings of the Criminal Case No.600 of 2011 pending in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.15, Ahmedabad are hereby ordered to be quashed. All consequential proceedings pursuant thereto also stand terminated. Rule is made absolute.

40. Since the root of all problems and dispute is the property, I deem fit to direct the learned City Civil Judge to take up the Regular Civil Suit No.1547 of 2009 and the Regular Civil Suit No. 1663 of 2009 for hearing expeditiously and see to it that the same are disposed of within a period of six months from today.

41. It is needless to clarify that none of the observations made by this Court in this judgment shall have any bearing so far as the civil rights of the parties are concerned. The two civil suits shall be decided by the Civil Court on their own merits and on the basis of the evidence that may be led by the parties, oral as well as documentary. The learned Civil Judge shall in no manner be influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this judgment.

42. In view of the order passed in the main matter, the connected Criminal Misc. Application No.11550 of Page 19 of 20 R/CR.MA/6327/2012 CAV JUDGMENT 2013 has become infructuous and is accordingly disposed of.

(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) Manoj Page 20 of 20

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court