Gujarat High Court
Umeshkumar Kantilal Patel vs State Of Gujarat & on 18 April, 2017
Author: B.N. Karia
Bench: B.N. Karia
R/CR.MA/4818/2011 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 4818 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law
as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or
any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
UMESHKUMAR KANTILAL PATEL....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
M/S S G ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR KB ANANDJIWALA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR KP RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 18/04/2017
CAV JUDGMENT
1. The applicant-accused no.3 has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure {"CrPC" for brevity} for quashing and setting aside the complaint, being Page 1 of 29 HC-NIC Page 1 of 29 Created On Sun Aug 13 23:50:37 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/4818/2011 CAV JUDGMENT C.R. No. I-187/2011 registered with Naroda Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, qua the applicant.
2. The facts leading to filing of the present application are as under:
2.1 That, the complainant-respondent no.2 is residing with her family and her husband was serving in Mahavir Cement Company, Naroda. That, her husband has four brothers. Her father in law is having land, bearing survey no. 281, 282, 283 and 287-old survey no. 102, 119 ad 288 of village Bilasia, Taluka: Daskroi, District: Ahmedabad. That, such land belongs to her husband and other brothers jointly and severally and as it is ancestral undivided property.
2.2 That, in the month of May, 2010, she came to know that sale deed of the land in question has been executed, and therefore, all the members Page 2 of 29 HC-NIC Page 2 of 29 Created On Sun Aug 13 23:50:37 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/4818/2011 CAV JUDGMENT gathered and inquired with the office of Sub Registrar and came to know that 3 sale deeds have been executed in the name of Umeshkumar Kantilal Patel who is shown as the purchaser and name of Bharatkumar is shown as the Seller. It was also found that sale deed No. 6432, 6433 and 6434 have been executed on 05.05.2010 in the office of Sub Registrar for block no. 119 and 202. Thereafter, all the family members of the complainant inquired the husband of the complainant about sale of such land, but he denied. That, prior to two months, the complainant came in contact with one Kiranbhai and through him, she came in contact with Jigar @ Jigo.
That, thereafter, they got signatures of the husband of the complainant informing him that his signature is taken for seeking employment and subsequently, 3 to 4 signatures were also taken by them in this connection. They also sought photographs and photo-stat copy of the documents, and accordingly, Page 3 of 29 HC-NIC Page 3 of 29 Created On Sun Aug 13 23:50:37 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/4818/2011 CAV JUDGMENT the documents were provided to them. Thereafter, the impugned complaint has been filed by the complainant-respondent no.2 herein.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned advocate Mr. KB Anandjiwala appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 and learned APP Mr. KP Raval appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1-State.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that the entire complaint is based on suppression of material facts inasmuch as proceeding, being Special Civil Suit No. 430 of 2007 filed and is pending since long before the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), seeking specific performance of agreement to sale. That, during the pendency of the said suit, Bharatbhai has sold share of his land in favour of the applicant. That, the act of complainant to initiate criminal prosecution is showing her Page 4 of 29 HC-NIC Page 4 of 29 Created On Sun Aug 13 23:50:37 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/4818/2011 CAV JUDGMENT malafide intention, vexatious and amounts to abuse of process of law only with a sole intention to pressurize and harass the applicant. That, criminal complaint is filed besides all other legal proceedings having been undertaken before the respective authorities viz., the office of Sub Registrar, before the Mamlatdar as well as by way of Special Civil Suit before the Civil Court. That, the complainant has purposefully made a complaint, being a lady and wife of Bharatbhai, who in fact has executed the document of sale and executed power of attorney and indemnity bond to safeguard the right, title and interest of the purchasers. That, as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by this Court, where dispute is purely in the nature of civil dispute and criminal machinery is put to motion by an aggrieved person, it is nothing but a gross abuse and misuse of process of law. That, on account of escalation of price, now the complainant Page 5 of 29 HC-NIC Page 5 of 29 Created On Sun Aug 13 23:50:37 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/4818/2011 CAV JUDGMENT has initiated proceedings through his wife by suppressing the material facts. That, even proceedings which were contested before the office of Mamlatdar have also been suppressed in the complaint.
5. In support of his arguments, learned advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli appearing on behalf of the applicant has relied on the judgments in the case of reported in case of Prakash Ramachandra Barot & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in 2011(3) GLH 211, Mohammed Ibrahim & others v. State of Bihar and Anr., reported in 2010(1) GLH 184 and 2007(11) SCALE 101. Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid authorities, it was requested by him to quash and set aside the impugned complaint, being C.R. No. I- 187/2011 registered with Naroda Police Station, Ahmedabad, qua the present applicant.
6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. KB Page 6 of 29 HC-NIC Page 6 of 29 Created On Sun Aug 13 23:50:37 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/4818/2011 CAV JUDGMENT Anandjiwala appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 strongly and vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant and argued that the incident took place on 5th May 2010, for which, complaint is lodged on 1st April, 2011 by the respondent no.2 and during this period, numbers of time applications were made to various authorities, such as, police authorities, District Magistrate, etc., but no satisfactory response was received by the respondent no.2. That, acknowledgment receipts have been received by the respondent no.2 on her grievance made before various authorities. That, on 6th July, 2010, a letter was received by complainant from the Gujarat State Human Rights Commission, New Delhi to take necessary action. That, on coming to know that 2(two) sale deeds were executed by her husband, it was decided by family members of the respondent no.2 to file a complaint. The delay Page 7 of 29 HC-NIC Page 7 of 29 Created On Sun Aug 13 23:50:37 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/4818/2011 CAV JUDGMENT has been sufficiently explained by the respondent no.2 for lodging late complaint, as she had raised her grievance before various authorities from where no action was taken and therefore, there is some delay in lodging the complaint by her. That, on 26th July, 2013, the office of District Collector was pleased to forward a report to the respondent no.2. Thus, there is no fault on the part of the respondent in lodging the complaint at a belated stage. That, the charge-sheet is filed by the Investigating Agency against remaining 2(two) accused, after collecting necessary evidence involving them in the offence. Statements of Bharatbhai Lilabhai and Kiranbhai Baldevbhai Panchal are recorded by the Investigating Agency and they clearly have stated that the husband of the respondent no.2 was in search of Government job. That, in collision with the co-accused a conspiracy was hatched to commit an offence by the present applicant. That, an Page 8 of 29 HC-NIC Page 8 of 29 Created On Sun Aug 13 23:50:37 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/4818/2011 CAV JUDGMENT Affidavit-in-reply is filed by the respondent no.2 in this proceedings. That, the husband of the respondent no.2, since was facing problem of hearing, weak vision and not mentally sound, he was in search of a Government job. During the year 1980, forged agreement to sell (banakhat) was executed by the father of the applicant regarding the said land, which is alleged to have been sold by the father of the husband in May 2010. That, in a bail application preferred by the co-accused before the learned Sessions Court at Ahmedabad, an affidavit is filed by the Investigating Officer, wherein it is disclosed that in the year 1980, the alleged agreement to sell was executed by the father of the seller ie., Bharatbhai Lilabhai Marwadi, wherein father-in-law of the complainant is original owner of the land in dispute. After his death, his legal heirs became joint owners of the land in dispute. Their sisters, later on, relieved their shares from the land Page 9 of 29 HC-NIC Page 9 of 29 Created On Sun Aug 13 23:50:37 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/4818/2011 CAV JUDGMENT in dispute and the mother expired. That, on 8th February, 1980, an agreement to sell was executed by Lilabhai Bhagwandas before the Notary at Sr. No. 2337. On an inquiry from the Government, the Notary had executed only 600 documents during the year in question. That, expert opinion was also received and it was opined that agreement to sell dated 08.02.2008 was forged document. It is clear case that by deception, signatures of the husband of the complainant were received by the applicant, fraudulently. It is a case of conspiracy hatched by the applicant and other co-accused. Learned advocate Mr. Anandjiwala appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 read over Section 464 to urge that under 3rd Clause, the present case would fall . That, act of conspiracy and deception are clearly proved by the complainant in her complaint. That, within 4 to 5 days, interim relief was granted in favour of the applicant by this Court, and therefore, Page 10 of 29 HC-NIC Page 10 of 29 Created On Sun Aug 13 23:50:37 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/4818/2011 CAV JUDGMENT no investigation was possible by the Investigating Agency. Without proper investigation, the prayer to quash and set aside FIR, which is made by the applicant, cannot be allowed and investigation be permitted to continue, as the charge sheet is filed against remaining co-accused, after completion of the investigation, qua then.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Anandajiwala appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 has also produced certain documents justifying delay caused in lodging the complaint, along with a copy of the civil suit pending before the Court and order passed by the Court. Ultimately, it was requested by him to dismiss the present application.
8. Shri KP Raval, learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1-State has supported the arguments advanced by learned advocate Mr. KB Anandiwala appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 and argued that at this juncture, no powers Page 11 of 29 HC-NIC Page 11 of 29 Created On Sun Aug 13 23:50:37 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/4818/2011 CAV JUDGMENT could be exercised by this Court under Section 482 CrPC. That, after completing the investigation by the Police, charge-sheet has been filed against the co-accused and after recording necessary statements, as sufficient material is also available against the present applicant in the offence alleged. Hence, it was requested by him to dismiss the application.
9. Having considered the facts of the case, submissions made by learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and documentary evidence produced on the record, prima facie, it appears that two registered sale deeds were executed by the husband of the respondent no.2 in favour of the applicant on 5th May, 2010 before the office of the Sub Registrar and photographs of the husband of the respondent no.2 was affixed as well as signatures were put by him in presence of 2(two) witnesses on the same day. The land in dispute is Page 12 of 29 HC-NIC Page 12 of 29 Created On Sun Aug 13 23:50:37 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/4818/2011 CAV JUDGMENT situated at village Bilasia, being survey nos. 281, 282, 283 and 287 [old survey no. block no. 102 and 109 and survey no. 288]. It appears that sale deed Nos. 6432, 6433, 6434 were executed on 5th May, 2010 before the office of Sub Registrar for block no. 119 and 202.
10. To decide the present application, it would be necessary to go through the root of the dispute. From the record, it appears that an agreement to sell of the land in dispute was executed by Shri Lilabhai Bhagwanbhai, father-in-law of the complainant in favour of Patel Kantibhai Bababhai, father of the applicant on 8th February, 1980 and he agreed to sale land to the purchaser of block nos. 102 and 119. The total measurement of the land is shown in the agreement to sell as 33 Bighas and the price of the land was then fixed at Rs. 8500/- per bigha and this agreement to sell was notarized before a Notary Mr. H.F. Mithawala under this Page 13 of 29 HC-NIC Page 13 of 29 Created On Sun Aug 13 23:50:37 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/4818/2011 CAV JUDGMENT signature and seal on 8th February, 1980. From this document produced on the record, it can be said that father of the husband of the complainant- respondent no.2 agreed to sale the property in dispute ie., land of survey nos. 281, 282, 283, 287 block no. 102 and survey no. 288, block no. 119 to the father of the applicant viz., Patel Kantibhai Bababhai . The total price of the land was fixed at Rs. 2,72,000/-, out of which, Rs. 1,94,000/- was paid and the remaining amount of Rs. 78,000/- was unpaid. Till 2007 ie., for 27 years, no outstanding amount was paid, nor there is any mention about the time limit within which such amount was to be paid.
11. In a bail application filed by the co-accused of this offence, the Police investigated the aspect, as the Notary Mr. H. F. Mithawala was expired. While inquiring from the Legal Department, by a letter, the Legal Secretary informed the Page 14 of 29 HC-NIC Page 14 of 29 Created On Sun Aug 13 23:50:37 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/4818/2011 CAV JUDGMENT Investigating Officer that Mr. H. F. Mithawala was appointed as a Notary in the year 1978 and as per the Notary Act, every year, appointment has to be renewed. That, from 1st January to 31st December, each year, the Notary has to intimate the Legal Department about the Notary work done by him. As per the information given by the Legal Department, the said Notary Mr. Mithawala had submitted his report during the period from 1st January 1980 to 31st December 1980 and a copy of the said report was given to the Investigation Officer. It was found by him that seal and signatures made in the said agreement to sell are different from the seal and signature of the Notary Mr. Mithawala and the said agreement to sell was found forged and fabricated. In the agreement to sell, as per serial number, which is mentioned as Sr. No. 2337 dated 8th February, 1980, whereas it was revealed from the Legal Department that during the period of 1980, Page 15 of 29 HC-NIC Page 15 of 29 Created On Sun Aug 13 23:50:37 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/4818/2011 CAV JUDGMENT Mr. Mithwala has notarized 637 documents, and therefore, the serial number, seal and signature mentioned in the agreement to sell was found false. The said bail application of the co-accused viz., Jigo @ Jigar Mukeshbhai Shah was dealt with by the learned Sessions Judge and an affidavit was submitted by the Investigating Officer.
12. Thereafter, the applicant and other family members filed a Special Civil Suit No. 430/2007 for specific performance of contract. Mr. Anandjiwala, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 has produced opinion of hand- writing expert in connection with agreement to sell dated 8th February, 1980. As per his opinion, the person who wrote in blue encircled natural signatures marked N1 to N7 did not write the red encircled Gujarati written disputed signature of the name Lilabhai Bhagwandas in Banakhat dated 8th February, 1980 marked Q1. It was further opined Page 16 of 29 HC-NIC Page 16 of 29 Created On Sun Aug 13 23:50:37 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/4818/2011 CAV JUDGMENT that this red encircled disputed signature marked Q1 is found forged and not genuine one. The written statement filed in the said Special Civil Suit No. 430/2007 also produced by the respondent no.2 as well as a deed of Lis Pendence dated 4th August, 2008, copy of the plaint of the said suit showing the names of the legal heirs of the deceased Kantibhai Bababhai and all the defendants, legal heirs of Lilabhai Bhagwandas. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Mirzapur, Ahmedabad (Rural) therefore, was pleased to allow the application for interim injunction Exhibit-5 granting status-quo in respect of the suit property, till final disposal of the suit by his order dated 30th April, 2011. In the said suit, present applicant was the plaintiff no.4 and husband of the respondent -Bharatbhai Lilabhai, who had executed two registered sale deeds in favour of the applicant on 5th May, 2010, was the defendant no.4 in the said suit. However, on 30th April, 2011, learned 3rd Page 17 of 29 HC-NIC Page 17 of 29 Created On Sun Aug 13 23:50:37 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/4818/2011 CAV JUDGMENT Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) Mirzapur, Ahmedabad was pleased to allow the application for for interim injunction Ex. 5 in favour of the plaintiffs, in which, the present applicant was one of the plaintiffs and husband of the respondent no.2-complainant was one of the defendants. That, status quo was granted by the Court below. It appears that sale deeds No. 6432, 6433 and 6434 were executed on 5th May, 2010 in the office of Sub Registrar for block no. 119 and 202. During the pendency of the suit ie., Special Civil Suit No. 430/2007, all these sale deeds were registered before the office of Sub Registrar at Odhav in presence of the witnesses. As per submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli appearing on behalf of the applicant, all the documents were executed by the husband of the respondent no.2 before the Sub Registrar wherein, his photograph was affixed, signature was taken in Page 18 of 29 HC-NIC Page 18 of 29 Created On Sun Aug 13 23:50:37 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/4818/2011 CAV JUDGMENT presence of the witnesses on 5th May, 2010. That, receipt of full consideration in favour of the seller was also made by the applicant. Here, the conduct of the applicant appears to be doubtful, as he was under knowledge that he was one of the plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No. 430/2007 and husband of the complainant was one of the defendants in suit, wherein status quo was granted by Civil Court in respect of the same land. However, he entered into an agreement in a nature of different sale deed of the same disputed land. It also appears that general power of attorney continued with the proceedings in respect of the land, which was purchased by the applicant and executed by the husband of the respondent no.2 viz. Bharatbhai, wherein, it is mentioned about execution of sale deed no. 6432 and 6433. In affidavit executed before the Notary by the husband of the respondent no.2 on 05.05.2010, a declaration is made with respect to execution of Page 19 of 29 HC-NIC Page 19 of 29 Created On Sun Aug 13 23:50:37 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/4818/2011 CAV JUDGMENT sale deed before the office of Sub-Registrar, and in fact, a further declaration is made that if there be any expenditure towards execution of any document in relation to title, the same would be borne by the seller. All the four deeds; including two sale deeds, indemnity bond and affidavit were executed on the very day ie., 5th May, 2010 by the husband of respondent no.2. It also appears that some revenue proceedings were going on between the parties before the Mamlatdar and Deputy Collector. It appears that the payment of land in dispute was made at Rs. 45 lacs to the husband of the complainant by way of cash, which appears to be doubtful. A prudent man would never pay such a huge amount entirely by way of cash to the seller. Further, it transpires from the sale deed that, no specific date is mentioned as to when this amount was paid to the seller by the applicant. In a statement of the husband of the respondent no.2 Page 20 of 29 HC-NIC Page 20 of 29 Created On Sun Aug 13 23:50:37 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/4818/2011 CAV JUDGMENT recorded by the police, he has clearly denied of having received a single rupee by him from the applicant and his signature was obtained in fraudulent manner and by deceitful means with a malafide intention. As per the statement of the Investigation Officer, the present applicant is master mind and is behind the entire conspiracy. He gave Rs. 2.50 lacs to the co-accused Akash and Rs. 70,000/- to the co-accused Jigar. Both the accused were neighbours and through them, the applicant secured presence of the seller, husband of the complainant in the office of the Sub Registrar enticing that her husband was seeking a government job and if he would sign on some of the documents, the procedural requirement would be over. It also appears from the record and the documentary evidence that after obtaining stay order from the Civil Court; as referred to above, the applicant got registered lis pendence before the Sub Page 21 of 29 HC-NIC Page 21 of 29 Created On Sun Aug 13 23:50:37 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/4818/2011 CAV JUDGMENT Registrar on 4th August, 2008 and regarding the same, an entry was also got made in the village form no. 6 on 10th October, 2008, which shows that land would not be transferred into the name of any person. From the record available with this Court, it can be said that the alleged agreement to sell, which was prepared on 8th February, 1980 was never executed and the remaining amount of Rs. 78,000/- was never paid. Despite the fact, a Civil Suit was filed in the Civil Court by the legal heirs of deceased Kantibhai, in which, the applicant was one of the plaintiffs. It is stated in the complaint that husband of the respondent no.2 viz., Bharatbhai Lilabhai was less educated and having little understanding and also very weak eye sight and doing labour work in packing department in a factory. It is further alleged in the complaint that he was duped on the excuse of getting a job for him in the Government department and he was taken to Page 22 of 29 HC-NIC Page 22 of 29 Created On Sun Aug 13 23:50:37 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/4818/2011 CAV JUDGMENT Sub Registrar by the co-accused namely Akash and Jignesh @ Jigo with photographs, where some signatures were obtained and without understanding the nature of documents, her husband had marked his signatures on the same. Both the co-accused have also supported the contents of the complaint that husband of the respondent no.2-complainant was duped and he was taken to Sub Registrar on a motor cycle, where his signatures were obtained by affixing photographs and election card. All the documents were signed by Bharatbhai, no amount was paid to him and while taking him to the Sub Registrar office, both the accused were paid huge amount for rendering their services. If clear observation would be made, both the sale deeds produced on record, allegedly executed by the husband of the respondent no.2 on 5th May, 2010, there is material difference in the signature of the husband of the Page 23 of 29 HC-NIC Page 23 of 29 Created On Sun Aug 13 23:50:37 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/4818/2011 CAV JUDGMENT respondent no.2 and his typed names in the document, which also creates doubts. Further, from the document produced on record, learned advocate Mr. KB Anandjiwala appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 that the present applicant, by way of another two sale deeds, sold the disputed land by registered sale deed No. 1093 dated 14th May, 2012 for Rs. 64,50,000/- (Sixty Four lacs Fifty thousand only) and by another registered sale deed No. 1094 on the same day ie., 14th May, 2012, at the consideration of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Five lacs only) to the purchasers, within a short of period of two years from the execution of the sale deed dated 5th May, 2010 in favour of the applicant, he has again sold the same land at very high price. Intention of the applicant from the entire record and circumstances appears to be otherwise. Moreover, learned advocate Mr. KB Anandjiwala appearing on behalf of the respondent Page 24 of 29 HC-NIC Page 24 of 29 Created On Sun Aug 13 23:50:37 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/4818/2011 CAV JUDGMENT no.2 has satisfactorily explained the delay caused in lodging the complaint by submitted documents on the record.
13. In case of Mohammed Ibrahim & others v. State of Bihar and Anr., reported in 2010(1) GLH 184, the Hon'ble High Court has held that Criminal Courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurize parties to settle civil disputes. But, at the same time, it should be noted that several disputes of civil nature may also contain the ingredients of criminal offences and if so, will have to be tried as criminal offences, even if they also amount to civil disputes.
14. From the facts and circumstances of this case, however, the dispute may be a civil dispute in nature between the parties, it also contain ingredients of criminal offence; as discussed above. From the beginning of execution of agreement to Page 25 of 29 HC-NIC Page 25 of 29 Created On Sun Aug 13 23:50:37 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/4818/2011 CAV JUDGMENT sell is long back 1980, which was found false and fabricated , as per the opinion of the hand writing expert, and however, on the basis of said agreement to sell, Special Civil Suit No. 430/2007 was filed by the plaintiffs/applicant along with other legal heirs of deceased Kantibhai, in whose favour, the said agreement to sell was executed, they obtained ad-interim relief in the form of status quo below their application ex. 5 praying for interim injunction against the defendants. However, the suit was pending and lis pendence was registered with the office of the Sub Registrar, the plaintiffs/applicant entered into an agreement in sale deed from the husband of the respondent no.2, who was also one of the defendants in the suit on 5th May, 2010, giving such a huge amount of Rs. 65,00,000/-(Rupees Sixty Five lacs only), as shown in the sale deed by way of cash to the seller also appears to be doubtful to this Court. After passing of Page 26 of 29 HC-NIC Page 26 of 29 Created On Sun Aug 13 23:50:37 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/4818/2011 CAV JUDGMENT 2 years, again, the applicant sold the same land by receiving a huge amount, which comes to Rs. 1,94,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety Four lacs only) and thus, the conduct on the part of the applicant appears to be deceitful covering the ingredients of criminal nature.
15. In a case of Prakash Ramachandra Barot & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in 2011(3) GLH 211, it is held that while exercising the powers under Section 482 CrPC, it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. The power under the said provision is very wide, but was not unlimited. The inherent jurisdiction does not confer an arbitrary power on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. The power exists to prevent abuse of authority and not to produce injustice.
16. This court is of the view that the present Page 27 of 29 HC-NIC Page 27 of 29 Created On Sun Aug 13 23:50:37 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/4818/2011 CAV JUDGMENT application seeking quashment of the complaint lodged by the respondent no.2 against the applicant herein is merit-less and without any substance. Therefore, prayer as made by the applicant cannot be allowed by this Court.
17. Under the circumstances, this application fails and accordingly stands dismissed. Ad interim relief is vacated. Rule nisi discharged with no order as to costs.
18. As a parting note, it needs a mention here that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter and has only delved into the aspect of its entertainability for quashing the impugned complaint qua the applicant herein, and therefore, the applicant will at liberty to raise all the available contentions before the trial Court, which shall be gone into and dealt with by the concerned Court on it own merits and in accordance with law. Page 28 of 29 HC-NIC Page 28 of 29 Created On Sun Aug 13 23:50:37 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/4818/2011 CAV JUDGMENT (B.N. KARIA, J.) ksdarji Page 29 of 29 HC-NIC Page 29 of 29 Created On Sun Aug 13 23:50:37 IST 2017