Gujarat High Court
Alpeshbhai Chimanbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 25 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/8754/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION - TO LODGE
FIR/COMPLAINT) NO. 8754 of 2025
==========================================================
ALPESHBHAI CHIMANBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KISHAN R CHAKWAWALA(9846) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SHYAM R CHAKWAWALA(17305) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 25/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for the following relief:
"Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other apprpriate writ, order and/or direction in a nature of registration of FIR pursuant to the complaint dated 24.10.2024 and further complaint dated 25.04.2024 lodged before respondent No.2, 3 and 4 in compliance of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari and to investigate and register the FIR in the subject matter with all fairness, transparency and legality;"
[2.0] Heard learned advocate Mr. Kishan R. Chakwawala appearing for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondent No.1. the compilation tendered by learned advocate for the petitioner is taken on record.
[3.0] Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has purchased the property by paying consideration of Rs.74.73 lakh on 16.02.2021 though accused persons by hatching larger conspiracy have lodged false complaint through one Ramesh Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:45:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/8754/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined Manishankar Trivedi under the Land Grabbing Act on 16.12.2021 before the Vastrapur Police Station in connection with which the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to issue direction of no coercive steps against the present petitioner. The accused persons are trying to snatch the possession of the property from the present petitioner and threatening the present petitioner to cancel the aforesaid sale deed and in this regard, they have filed the civil proceeding and in collusion they have received the decree also. Hence, thereby accused persons have under the pretext of compromise and under the collusion committed the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) read with Section 34 of the IPC.
[4.0] Learned APP has opposed the present petition on the ground that petitioner has directly filed the petition before this Court and that offences are civil in nature and even one complaint for the offence under the Land Grabbing Act is filed and therefore, if the petitioner is aggrieved or dissatisfied then he may file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate authority and has requested not to entertain the present petition.
[5.0] The petitioner has straightway filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without approaching the authority. Prima facie, it appears that the dispute in question is civil in nature and so far as the main grievance of the petitioner that, after execution of sale deed under the pretext of back-dated agreement to sell, proposed accused persons have filed collusive suit in the Civil Court and they are taking undue advantage of said litigation after pocketing money and proposed accused have committed offence of forgery, cheating and criminal breach of trust is concerned, there are no any averments which disclose the entrustment of the property and Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:45:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/8754/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined once the sale deed is executed and title is transferred in favor of the present petitioner and as proceeding under the Land Grabbing Act is also pending and decree of civil court is also passed which may be collusive decree or on merits. The petitioner was having ample opportunity to file the appropriate proceeding against the said decree or proceeding. Prima facie, the said averments does not disclose any forgery of document or commission of cognizable offence though petitioner has straightway approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without approaching the higher authority or taking the resource under Section 154(3) of the CrPC or filing proceeding before the competent authority.
[5.1] Further, learned advocate for the petitioner to buttress his submission has also relied on the decision dated 08.08.2023 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sindhu Janak Nagargoje vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. as well as another decision in the case of The State of Rajasthan vs. Surendra Singh Rathore reported in 2025 INSC 248. At this stage it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parasa Raja Manikyala Rao And Anr vs State Of A.P. reported in AIR 2004 SC 132, wherein it has been observed and held as under:
"...Each case, more particularly a criminal case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough to warrant like treatment because a significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive."
In view of the above, the aforesaid two decisions relied upon by Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:45:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/8754/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined the learned advocate for the petitioner would not avail any assistance to the case of the petitioner on the count that the petitioner has not pointed out as to how the facts of the said cases are applicable to the case on hand and petitioner has without demonstrating as to how the cited decisions are applicable, insisted to pass an order based on the aforesaid two pronouncements.
[5.2] Herein, prima facie, no any cognizable offnece is made out. If prima facie commission of cognizable offence is disclosed then it is the duty of the police to register the complaint. At this stage, it is profitable to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. vs. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority reported in (2013) 10 SCC 95, wherein it is observed and held that, practice of citing several decisions on a particular point of law - Not useful as courts may, on facts of different cases, arrive at different conclusions.
[6.0] Further, learned advocate for the petitioner has insisted to pass the order and to issue direction in light of the aforesaid two decisions but learned advocate for the petitioner failed to point out as to how the fact of the said cases are applicable and cognizable offence is disclosed and without demonstrating as to how the cited two decisions are applicable to the case on hand and therefore, aforesaid two decisions would not avail any assistance. Herein, without taking any appropriate step and without availing alternative remedy, straightway the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is impermissible. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Subramaniam vs. S. Janki reported in (2020)16 SCC 728 as well as in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:45:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/8754/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage & Others reported in (2016)6 SCC 277 wherein it is held that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Even, so far as decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 is concerned, scope of Section 171 of the CrPC [section 170(3) of the BNSS] has been discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
[7.0] Even otherwise, considering specific averments and submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner, it appears that alternative remedy is available to the petitioner including to resolve his grievance by availing civil remedy. So far as grievance of registration of complaint for the offence of forgery, cheating and criminal breach of trust, rather than straightway approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Subramaniam (Supra) as well as in the case of Imran Pratap Gadhi vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2025 SCC OnLine (SC) 678, no case is made out to issue any direction.
[8.0] In wake of aforesaid discussion, present petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.
However, the respondent authority is directed to inform about the outcome of complaint / application dated 24.10.2024 of the petitioner, so as to enable the petitioner to take appropriate recourse, if so advised. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the case.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:45:31 IST 2025