Gujarat High Court
Ismailbhai Umarbhai Jabai vs State Of Gujarat on 29 September, 2021
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
R/CR.MA/455/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 455 of 2012
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 458 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
================================================================
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 ?
================================================================
ISMAILBHAI UMARBHAI JABAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR YN RAVANI (718) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ASHISH M DAGLI with MR. MAHESH POOJARA (2203) for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
MS MONALI BHATT, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (2) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 29/09/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Both these applications arise out of one and the same First Information Report and therefore, Page 1 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 19:51:01 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/455/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2021 they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Challenge in both these applications filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to the First Information Report being C.R. No. I - 2 of 2012 registered with Aghoi Police Station, East Kutch, Gandhidham for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 114 of Indian Penal Code.
Criminal Misc. Application No.455 of 2012 is preferred by accused No.1 in the impugned complaint; whereas, Criminal Misc. Application No.458 of 2012 has been preferred by remaining accused Nos.2 to 4.
3. The present applications have been filed mainly on the ground that the impugned complaint is an abuse of the process of law and has been filed with a malafide intention so as to harass the applicants. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Y.N. Ravani appearing for the applicants in both the matters that respondent No.2-original complainant has not come before the Court with clean hands. The complainant herein happens to be the son-in-law of one Valimamad Mamad Jabi and claims share in the property in such capacity. He submitted that the parties are Page 2 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 19:51:01 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/455/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2021 governed by the Mahomedan Law and therefore, the son-in-law would not have any right to claim share in the property belonging to his father-in- law. Even if it is considered that the impugned complaint has been filed in the capacity of being the Power of Attorney holder of the father-in- law, the fact remains that the father-in-law, who happened to be the son of Mamad Khungar Jabhai, had never claimed any share in the ancestral property and therefore, the only remedy that was available to the father-in-law of the Power of Attorney was to file a civil suit.
4. It was submitted by learned advocate Mr. Ravani that the accused No.1 (Applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 455 of 2012) is a cousin of the respondent-complainant, who had purchased the property bearing Survey No. 333, ad-measuring 4 Acres and 37 Gunthas, situated at Village : Sikharpur, Bhachau, Sub-District & District : Kutch, from three persons, namely, (a) Sabiben Mamad Jabai, who is the Widow of Mamad Khungar Jabai (b) Juma Mamad Jabai, son of Mamad Khungar Jabai and (c) Janmamad Mamad Jabai; and thus, he is a bona fide purchaser of the land (hereinafter referred to as "the subject land").He submitted that accused No. 3 is the person in whose favour the Power of Attorney dated 26.03.2007 was executed by the erstwhile Page 3 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 19:51:01 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/455/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2021 three owners of the subject land whereas, accused No.2 is a Witness to the said document. The accused No.4 is a bona fide purchaser of the subject land by virtue of the sale deed executed on 17.07.2017 and that no ingredients of the offence punishable under Sections 465, 467 or 468 of IPC are attracted in the present case. It was urged that the respondent-complainant has not made any allegation about any misrepresentation or forgery of signatures in the entire complaint. The subject land sold by the co-owners is an ancestral property, which cannot be questioned by way of registering a First Information Report and that the appropriate remedy is to file civil suit.
4.1 The applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No.455 of 2012 had purchased the subject land by way of a registered sale deed on 22.09.1997 and in the sale deed itself, the subject land has been mentioned as an ancestral property. Thereafter, the applicant had sold the subject land to Govindbhai Raghavjibhai Patel by way of registered sale deed executed on 28.06.2010. It appears that prior to the execution of the aforesaid sale deed, the co-owners - Juma Mamad Jabai and Valimamad Mamad Jabai had sold their share of the ancestral property to Govindbhai Raghavjibhai Patel by way of sale deed dated Page 4 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 19:51:01 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/455/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2021 22.07.1998. The very execution of the sale deed dated 22.07.1998 proves that the father-in-law of the respondent-complainant had acknowledged his share in the subject land and had, therefore, executed the registered sale deed in favour of Govindbhai Raghvjibhai Patel. Subsequently, the applicant had sold the subject land to Govindbhai Raghavjibhai Patel by way of registered sale deed 28.06.2010. Thus, on the basis of the two sale deeds, Govindbhai Raghavjibhai Patel became the owner of the subject land.
4.2 It was further submitted that after execution of the sale deed dated 28.06.2010, the respondent-complainant filed the impugned complaint, without disclosing the factum of execution of registered sale deed dated 22.07.1998 and therefore, the challenge given to revenue Entry No.1458 in respect of the subject land bears no significance, as the sale deed had already been executed on 22.07.1998. The said revenue entry was certified on 16.10.2004 as a part of the updation process.
4.3 Learned advocate Mr. Ravani submitted that the applicants cannot be said to be carrying any ill-intention of excluding the father-in-law of the respondent-complainant since the father-in- law himself had sold his share of the subject Page 5 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 19:51:01 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/455/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2021 land to Govindbhai Raghavjibhai Patel by way of registered sale deed dated 22.07.1998. He stated that revenue Entry No.2058, which was certified on 09.03.2009, was in accordance with Promulgation No.7 of 2008 of the State Government and on the basis of which the subject land was allotted two different survey numbers. It was on the basis of the Promulgation that revenue Entry was made and therefore, neither the applicants nor the heirs of deceased Mamad Khungar Jabai would have any say on the issue. Thereafter, by the order of the Revenue Department, the disputed land was converted into old tenure land. The entry questioned by the respondent-complainant was certified in 2008; however, the said challenge is without any basis as the sale deed was executed after the Notification of the State Government.
4.4 Learned advocate for the applicants relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Mohammed Ibrahim and Others v. State of Bihar and another, 2010 (1) GLH 184, which has been relied upon by this Court in a judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench in the case of Prakash Ramchandra Barot and others v. State of Gujarat, 2011 (3) GLH 211. Similar view has been taken in another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Parminder Kaur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Page 6 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 19:51:01 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/455/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2021 Another, (2010) 1 SCC 322. It was, accordingly, urged that the present applications may be allowed by exercising the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
5. Learned advocate Mr. A.M. Dagli appearing with learned advocate Mr. Mahesh Poojara for the respondent-complainant submitted that the subject land was sold under a criminal conspiracy. The accused persons had forged the revenue records and had sold the land bearing Survey No.900, which, actually belonged to the heirs of deceased Mamad Khungar Jabai. The sale deed so executed, was on the basis of the Power of Attorney, which was also forged and as per the respondent- complainant, the same has been destroyed by the accused persons and it is also not found in the revenue record of Village : Shikarpur. It was submitted that the impugned complaint came to be filed as the respondent-complainant found that the revenue records had been forged and false documents had been created. Hence, prima facie, offences under sections 420, 465, 466, 467 read with section 114 of IPC is made out against the applicants.
5.1 It was further submitted that deceased Mamad Khungar Jabai had left behind seven legal heirs consisting of the widow, three sons and three Page 7 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 19:51:01 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/455/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2021 daughters. Valimamad Mamad Jabai is one of the sons of Mamad Khungar Jabai and in the capacity of being the Power of Attorney holder of Valimamad Mamad Jabai, the respondent-complainant has filed the impugned complaint and hence, the same is maintainable. It was submitted that not only the aggrieved party but, every person has a right to put the criminal law into motion and thus, the impugned complaint, at the instance of the Power of Attorney of Valimamad Mamad Jabai, would be maintainable. It was submitted that the conspiracy on hand relates to land bearing Survey No.900, which was allegedly sold in connivance with the Sarpanch of the Village and other legal heirs. All the heirs of deceased Mamad Khungar Jabai have share in the lands bearing Survey Nos.333 and 900. It was further submitted revenue entry No. 1457 had been forged by adding survey No.900 later on, as it does not find place in the original entry No.1457.
5.2 Learned advocate for the respondent- complainant stated that all the records relating to said revenue entry are not traceable in the Office of the Panchayat. It was stated that Babubhai Kanabhai Bambhaniya had been nominated as the Power of Attorney holder of Sabiben Jabai Mamad, Jabai Juma Mamad and Jabai Janmamad Mamad; however, the said revenue entry does not show the Page 8 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 19:51:01 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/455/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2021 name of the father-in-law of the respondent- complainant as being one of the Heirs of Mamad Khungar Jabai. Hence, a criminal conspiracy has been hatched by the accused persons in connivance with the Power of Attorney - Babubhai Kanabhai Bambhania and the Witness - Umaruddin Haaji Suleman Traya. He drew attention of the Court to the sale deed executed in the year 2007 to submit that the land bearing Survey No.300 was re- numbered as Survey No.900 pursuant to the Notification of the State Government, which has snatched away the valuable right of the father- in-law of the respondent-complainant. It was, therefore, prayed that the present applications may be rejected.
6. Heard the learned advocates on both the sides. The claim put forward by way of the impugned complaint, by the son-in-law of Valimamad Mamad Jabai, is towards the lands bearing Survey Nos.333 and 900, which, as per the Power of Attorney, contain both the Survey Numbers of land. However, as per the revenue records, both the survey numbers of lands are of different measurements and therefore, the sale of land bearing Survey No.900 on the basis of the Power of Attorney is a fraud as it is executed on the basis of false documents. It is the say of the respondent-complainant that the documents Page 9 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 19:51:01 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/455/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2021 relating to revenue Entry No.1458 have gone missing from the Panchayat Office and that the applicants have got it destroyed for their advantage.
7. The claim has been made on the basis that they are the Heirs of deceased Mamad Khungar Jabai. According to Mulla's "Principles of Mahomedan Law", 22nd Edition, Chapter - VII relating to "Hanafi Law of Inheritance", the Heirs have been classified into three classes, namely (a) Sharers (b) Residuaries and (c) Distant Kindred;
(a) "Sharers" are those who are entitled to a prescribed share of the "inheritance".
(b) "Residuaries" are those who take no prescribed share, but succeed to the "residue" after the claims of the sharers are satisfied;
(c) "Distant Kindred" are all those relations by blood who are neither Sharers nor Residuaries.
7.1 As per the "Hanafi Law of Inheritance", the first step in the distribution of estate of deceased Mahomedan is the payment of funeral Page 10 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 19:51:01 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/455/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2021 expenses, debts and legacies. The next step is to ascertain as to which of the surviving relations belong to the class of sharers and which amongst these, are entitled to a share of inheritance. After this is done, the next step is to assign respective shares to such of the sharers as are, under the circumstances of the case, entitled to succeed to a share. Such classification is made on the basis of a list of sharers, details specifying the normal share of each shares, conditions determining the right of each sharer to a share and details setting out the shares as varied by special circumstances. However, under the Mahomedan Law, son-in-law does not have any share in the property of the father-in-law.
8. In the present case, the transactions are in respect of lands bearing Survey Nos.333 of 900. However, the impugned complaint does not disclose the fact that the father-in-law of the respondent-complainant along with Jumabhai Mamad had executed the sale deed in respect of land bearing Survey No.333 on 22.07.1998 in favour of Govindbhai Raghavji Patel. As submitted by learned advocate Mr. Ravani, subsequently, the applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No.455 of 2012 sold his share in the property to Govindbhai Raghavji Patel on 28.06.2010 in view of the sale deed dated 22.07.1998. Necessary entry being Page 11 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 19:51:01 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/455/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2021 revenue Entry No.1457 was certified on 16.10.2004. From the above set of facts, it is clear that the father-in-law of the respondent- complainant had already acknowledged his right in respect of land bearing Survey No.333 by way of the sale deed dated 22.07.1998. It is undisputed that the heirs of deceased Mamad Khungar Jabhai would be governed by the principles of Mahomedan Law. If at all, the father-in-law of the respondent-complainant claims right over the land bearing Survey No.900, the appropriate remedy for him is to file a civil suit before the competent Civil Court challenging the Power of Attorney executed on 26.03.2007 and the sale deed dated 17.07.2007 executed in respect of land bearing Survey No.900. However, as stated by learned advocate Mr. Ravani, the land which did not have any Survey Numbers, were allotted Survey Numbers in pursuance of Promulgation No.7 of 2008 issued by the State Government, and accordingly, Entry No.2058 dated 20.10.2008 was made.
9. A contention has been raised on behalf of the applicants that the impugned complaint has been filed by suppressing material facts. It is a matter of fact that the sale deed dated 22.07.1998 executed by the father-in-law of the respondent-complainant has not been disclosed in the impugned complaint. No civil suit has been Page 12 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 19:51:01 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/455/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2021 filed before any Civil Court in relation to the subject lands. If the date of the sale deed, i.e. 22.07.1998, in respect of land bearing Survey No.333 is taken into consideration, it is evident that the impugned complaint has been filed after a delay of almost 15 years and no explanation, much less any satisfactory explanation, has been put-forth for the said delay neither in the impugned complaint nor in the present proceedings. Even if the impugned complaint is treated for the sale deed executed on 17.07.2007; still, however, five years delay has not been explained.
10. The sections invoked in the present case are 420, 465, 467, 468 and 114 of IPC. In Mohammed Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar (supra), the Apex Court has explained the concept of "false documents" in the following terms:
"14. An analysis of Section 464 of the Penal Code shows that it divides false documents into three categories:
1. The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other persons, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed.
2. The second is where a person dishonestly Page 13 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 19:51:01 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/455/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2021 or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person.
3. The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon him, knows the contents of the document or the nature of the allegations.
In short, a person is said to have made a "false document", if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practising deception, or from a person not in control of his senses."
10.1 It is also alleged in the impugned complaint that false documents have been prepared by the accused and that the alleged act has been executed as a part of a criminal conspiracy. In this context, it would be relevant to refer to the observations made by the Apex Court in paragraphs - 15 to 17 in Mohammed Ibrahim's case (supra):
"15. The sale deeds executed by first appellant, clearly and obviously do not fall under the second and third categories of 'false documents'. It therefore remains to be seen whether the claim of the complainant Page 14 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 19:51:01 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/455/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2021 that the execution of sale deeds by the first accused, who was in no way connected with the land, amounted to committing forgery of the documents with the intention of taking possession of complainant's land (and that accused 2 to 5 as the purchaser, witness, scribe and stamp vendor colluded with first accused in execution and registration of the said sale deeds) would bring the case under the first category.
16. There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bonafide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of `false documents', it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed.
17. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under section 464 Page 15 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 19:51:01 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/455/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2021 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither section 467 nor section 471 of the Code are attracted."
11. Here, in this case, the sale deed executed on 22.09.1997 is by the Heirs of deceased Mamad Khungar Jabhai. There is no allegation that the persons, who are the sellers and had executed the sale deed in question, are not the Heirs of deceased. There is also no dispute regarding any forgery of signature on the sale deed rather the sale deed gets acknowledged by the sale deed of the father-in-law of the respondent-complainant executed on 22.07.1998 in respect of land bearing Survey No.333. The said aspect gets re-affirmed by the subsequent sale deed dated 28.02.2010 executed by the applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No.455 of 2012. Under no circumstances, the execution of sale deed would fall under the category of being a "false document" unless and until the ingredients thereof are pointed out. In the instant case, the person executing the document had the authority to sell the property and on the basis of such authority, the title of the property came to be transferred by the original owner to the purchaser, who is the applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No.455 of 2012. Hence, the ingredients of the offence punishable under Page 16 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 19:51:01 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/455/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2021 sections 467 and 471 of IPC are not present in this case.
12. In the case of Mohammad Ibrahim (supra), it has been observed in paragraphs - 20 to 22 as under;
"20. When a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed, to allege that the vendor has cheated him by making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with the sale consideration. But in this case the complaint is not by the purchaser. On the other hand, the purchaser is made a co-accused.
21. It is not the case of the complainant that any of the accused tried to deceive him either by making a false or misleading representation or by any other action or omission, nor is it his case that they offered him any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce him to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Nor did the complainant allege that the first appellant pretended to be the complainant while executing the sale deeds. Therefore, it cannot be said that the first accused by the act of executing sale deeds in favour of the second accused or the second accused by reason of being the purchaser, or the third, fourth and fifth accused, by reason of being the witness, scribe and stamp vendor in regard to the sale deeds, deceived the complainant in any manner.Page 17 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 19:51:01 IST 2022
R/CR.MA/455/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2021
22. As the ingredients of cheating as stated in section 415 are not found, it cannot be said that there was an offence punishable under sections 417, 418, 419 or 420 of the Code."
13. Considering the principle rendered in Mohammed Ibrahim's case (supra), it could be gainfully said that it would only be the purchaser in the sale deed, who would be considered to be the person to have been cheated by the seller, if there are any allegations of fraud by the seller to the purchaser. Thus, in the present case, the only person who would be entitled to file a complaint would be the purchaser and not the respondent No.2 herein. If the facts of the present case are considered, then it would be the applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 455 of 2012, who is the purchaser, could file a complaint alleging that a fraud had been committed on him by the seller/s. The same principle would apply in case of the sale deed executed on 17.07.2007. It is also a matter of fact that no challenge has been made to the Power of Attorney executed on 26.03.2007 as also the subsequent sale deed on 17.07.2007 before any Civil Court. Further, the impugned complaint itself suggests that it was an inter se dispute between the heirs of deceased Page 18 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 19:51:01 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/455/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2021 Mamad Khungar Jabhai. There was no case of any forgery or fraud or for that purpose, any case of cheating. It appears that the Investigating Officer has not verified these vital aspects of the case and has registered the complaint without carrying out any inquiry. Hence, the impugned complaint does not deserve to be sustained.
14. In State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, the Apex Court has made the following observations:-
"8.1. In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guide in myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:
(a) 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;
(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose Page 19 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 19:51:01 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/455/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2021 a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;
(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;
(d) where the allegations in the FIR 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 Section 155(2) of the Code;
(e) where the allegations made in the FIR 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;
(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings 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;
(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide 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."Page 20 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 19:51:01 IST 2022
R/CR.MA/455/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2021
15. Considering the facts of the case and the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the above two decisions, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned complaint filed by the respondent No.2 is a clear misuse and abuse of the process of law and deserves to be quashed and set aside in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
16. For the foregoing reasons, the petitions are allowed. The impugned complaint being C.R. No. I
- 2 of 2012 registered with Aghoi Police Station, East Kutch, Gandhidham and all the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.
(GITA GOPI, J) PRAVIN KARUNAN Page 21 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 19:51:01 IST 2022