Gujarat High Court
Suyash Yashwant Patil vs State Of Gujarat on 25 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16861/2021 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 16861 of 2021
==========================================================
SUYASH YASHWANT PATIL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MANAN K PANERI(7959) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ROAHN RAVAL APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 25/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
By way of this petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks to quash FIR No.11200011210182 registered before the Valsad Rural Police Station-District: Valsad under Section 465, 468, 471, 473, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The short facts of the case are that it is alleged in the FIR that the Superintendent of Police, Valsad had received an information that some individuals are defrauding public at large and are preparing forged police verification and resident certificates and therefore the Superintendent of Police asked the Police officials of the District to be alert and keep watch over the same. Thus, on that basis police received from their private sources an information 21.01.2021 on during the patrolling of Valsad Rural Police Station area that one Mubin Ramzan Sheikh residing in house of Ramzan Kadir Sheikh at Mukund Garden Society, Village: Atul is preparing police verification and residence certificate of Atul Gram Panchayat Rs.400/-. Accordingly, the Police raided the premises after following due procedure and found the accused to have committed such Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Feb 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 01 00:17:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16861/2021 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2025 undefined offence.
3. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondent - State.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is Side In-charge of Praj Engineering & Infra Ltd. He would submit that Atul Company has given contract to Praj Engineering for hiring labourer from the open market and in turn Praj Engineering has given sub-contract to one RNA Associates and in this background of facts, in the submission of learned advocate for the petitioner he has not committed any offence.
4.1 He would further submit that looking to the allegations made in the FIR accused were preparing forged residential proof, domicile certificate and police clearance certificate. However, it is alleged that accused - Mubin Ramzan Shaikh was preparing false and fabricated documents. He would submit that on plain reading of the FIR, it does not disclose that the petitioner is involved in forging of the documents or preparing forged documents and / or used the same as genuine. He would submit that ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted in the present case. He would submit that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is arrayed as accused under the principle of vicarious liability and therefore FIR against the petitioner may be quashed and set aside.
4.1 In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the petitioner would rely upon the decision in case of Sheila Sebastian vs. R. Jawaharaj & Anr., (2018) 7 SCC 581 and Md. Ibrahim & Ors., vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 2009 (3) ACR 3072(SC) and it is urged to allow the petition by Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Feb 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 01 00:17:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16861/2021 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2025 undefined quashing and setting aside the FIR.
5. On the other hand, learned APP for the respondent - State on the basis of the police report would submit that there are total 50 forged documents of police verification, domicile certificate and proof of residence have been collected during the investigation from the Atul Company and statement of seven employees has been recorded wherein they have stated that present petitioner who is working as Side In-charge in the Praj Engineering has been given the work to verify the police record of new employees and he was the person in-charge for taking up the responsibility of the day-to-day needs of the worker, as also given the copy of Aadhar Card and photo to the petitioner for police verification and after obtaining the police verification certificate, the petitioner has deposited the same in Atul Company who are engaged for work in the company. Learned APP would further submit that such fact is also established from the statement of Abdulla Rahatali Saifi from his statement that police verification was done by the present petitioner, as also prepared forged certificate of Atul Gram Panchayat and in turn deposited in the Atul Company.
5.1 Learned APP would further submit that during the investigation sufficient evidence was found by the police against the petitioner and charge-sheet came to be filed being CC No.2066 of 2021 in the Court of learned JMFC, Valsad. In his submission, since the charge-sheet is filed, the petitioner may avail the appropriate remedy of discharge application.
5.2 By making above submissions, learned APP would submit to dismiss the present petition.
6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Feb 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 01 00:17:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16861/2021 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2025 undefined parties and examining the FIR alonwith the evidence collected during the investigation, what could be noticed that present petitioner has been considered as principal person for fabricating the documentary evidence; be it police verification or domicile certificate or residential proof or the certificate which is alleged to have been obtained from Atul Gram Panchayat. Insofar as the charges levelled in the FIR is concerned, forgery is defined in Section 463 of the IPC punishment of which is stated in Section 465 of the IPC. Forgery for the purpose of cheating is defined in Section 468 of the IPC. Section 471 of the IPC indicates using the forged documents as genuine one.
7. Now, looking to the allegations levelled against the petitioner and investigation conducted so far more particularly the statement of the witnesses, it demonstrates that prima facie case against the petitioner is attracted. Clear allegations that petitioner have fabricated the forged documents for hiring labourer for Atul Company are made and petitioner is alleged to have fabricated such documents like residential certificate, police verification certificate or any certificate related to Atul Gram Panchayat which gets supported from the evidence collected during the investigation and therefore having examined the FIR and investigation papers, this Court finds that sufficient material is available before the Court permitting the prosecution to proceed further in the matter.
8. In Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque (2005) 1 SCC 122, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph 11 as under:
"11. ... the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Feb 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 01 00:17:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16861/2021 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2025 undefined legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premise arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings."
9. In Sanapareday Maheedhar Seshagiri v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2007) 13 SCC 165, the Hon'ble Apex court has held as under:
Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Feb 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 01 00:17:00 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16861/2021 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2025 undefined "31. A careful reading of the abovenoted judgments makes it clear that the High Court should be extremely cautious and slow to interfere with the investigation and/or trial of criminal cases and should not stall the investigation and/or prosecution except when it is convinced beyond any manner of doubt that FIR does not disclose commission of any offence or that the allegations contained in FIR do not constitute any cognizable offence or that the prosecution is barred by law or the High Court is convinced that it is necessary to interfere to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. In dealing with such cases, the High Court has to bear in mind that judicial intervention at the threshold of the legal process initiated against a person accused of committing offence is highly detrimental to the larger public and societal interest. The people and the society have a legitimate expectation that those committing offences either against an individual or the society are expeditiously brought to trial and, if found guilty, adequately punished.
Therefore, while deciding a petition filed for quashing FIR or complaint or restraining the competent authority from investigating the allegations contained in FIR or complaint or for stalling the trial of the case, the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect. If the allegations contained in FIR or complaint disclose commission of some crime, then the High Court must keep its hands off and allow the investigating agency to complete the investigation without any fetter and also refrain from passing order which may impede the trial. The High Court should not go into the merits and demerits of the allegations simply because the petitioner alleges malus animus against the author of FIR or the complainant. The High Court must also refrain from making imaginary journey in the realm of possible harassment which may be caused to the petitioner on account of investigation of FIR or complaint. Such a course will result in miscarriage of justice and would encourage those accused of committing crimes to repeat the same. However, if the High Court is satisfied that the complaint does not disclose commission of any offence or prosecution is barred by limitation or that the proceedings of criminal case would result in failure of justice, then it may exercise inherent power under Section 482 CrPC."
Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Feb 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 01 00:17:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16861/2021 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2025 undefined
10. The Apex Court in case of M/S Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. ... vs The State Of Maharashtra [AIR 2021 SC 1918] after reviewing the authorities on record has made following conclusion:
"23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or "no coercive steps to be adopted", during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or "no coercive steps to be adopted" during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under:
i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence;
ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;
iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the 'rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Feb 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 01 00:17:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16861/2021 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2025 undefined
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere;
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;
x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;
xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;
xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;
xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;
xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint;
xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR;
Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Feb 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 01 00:17:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16861/2021 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2025 undefined
xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or "no coercive steps to be adopted" and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/ or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order.
xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of "no coercive steps to be adopted" within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by "no coercive steps to be adopted" as the term "no coercive steps to be adopted" can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied."
11. Learned advocate for the petitioner failed to make out a case for exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The allegations levelled in the FIR are sufficient to proceed further against the accused as reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR and the evidence supported during the Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Feb 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 01 00:17:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16861/2021 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2025 undefined investigation cannot be questioned while examining the FIR at threshold. The petitioner has also failed to bring on record that non-interference would result into miscarriage of justice and therefore, this Court does not find any reason to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction for quashing of the FIR. The case law cited at the bar by learned advocate for the petitioners are on different facts of the case and therefore they are not relevant and discussed herein.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. IR is vacated. At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioner request to extend the interim-relief for a period of 30 days. The said request is rejected in view of the fact that as per decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ravuri Krishna Murthy vs The State Of Telangana [2021 19 SCC 458] it has held that while rejecting the prayer for quashing of FIR, the High Court cannot pass blanket order.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) sompura Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Feb 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 01 00:17:00 IST 2025