IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1089 of 2004 For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 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, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
========================================================= SHRI PATEL MOHANBHAI KANJIBHAI - Applicant Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondents =========================================================
Appearance :
MR BHARGAV N BHATT for the Applicant.
MR LB DABHI ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent Nos: 1 & 3.
MR GAURANG K PATEL for Respondent No.2.
========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date : 07/03/2012
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioners herein – original accused No.3 (as per charge-sheet) to quash and set aside the impugned complaint being Criminal Case No. 384 of 2004 at the relevant time pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad Rural as well as charge-sheet filed by the investigating officer (arising out of M.Case No.3 of 2004 registered at Sola Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 502, 120(B) and 114 of Indian Penal Code).
2. The respondent No.2 herein – original complainant had filed a private complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural) against the petitioner and others for the offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 502, 120(B) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, alleging inter-alia that the accused persons have created and forged one Will alleged to have been executed by the father of the complainant with a view to create rights in the land of the complainant. It is alleged against the petitioner - original accused No.4 (as per the complaint) that on the basis of Will, in connivance with the petitioner, the original accused No.1 has tried to mutate his name in the revenue record and the petitioner has mentioned wrong date as 13/8/2004 in the notice under section 135(D) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. That the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate sent the said complaint for police investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to Sola Police Station. That thereafter the said complaint was registered as M.Case No.3 of 2004. That thereafter, after the investigation is concluded, investigating officer has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and others for the offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 502, 120(B) and 114 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, the petitioner - original accused No.4 (as per the complaint) has preferred the present petition to quash and set aside the impugned complaint being Criminal Case No. 384 of 2004, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad Rural. That during the pendency of the present petition, investigating officer submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 502, 120(B) and 114 of Indian Penal Code. By way of amendment, the petitioner herein has also prayed to quash and set aside the charge-sheet so far as the petitioner herein is concerned.
3. Mr.Bhargav Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner – original accused No.3 (as per the charge-sheet) has vehemently submitted that as such the petitioner has not committed the offences, as alleged. It is submitted that as such the petitioner has performed his statutory duty as a Talati-cum-Mantri and made a Kutcha entry in the revenue record as per the procedure and issued notice upon the complainant and other interested persons under section 135(D) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and invited objections and after receiving the objections, he immediately sent the same to the higher officer – Mamlatdar. It is submitted that as such nothing is on record that the petitioner had created and/or forged the Will in question and/or has abetted the accused No.1 in creating and/or forging the Will. It is submitted that as such in the notice issued by the petitioner section 135(D) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, on the top by mistake date was mentioned as 13/8/2004, and as such the notice was issued on 30/8/2004 and in the said notice at the bottom the correct date was mentioned as 30/8/2004. It is submitted that by the aforesaid it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed the offences as alleged in concocting the Will, which is alleged to have been forged by the original accused No.1. Therefore, it is submitted that when the petitioner has taken due care and has performed his statutory duty under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and when wrong date is mentioned by mistake, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 502, 120(B) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, as alleged. It is submitted that if the intention of the petitioner was to abet the other accused and/or if the petitioner had entered into criminal conspiracy with other accused persons, in that case, petitioner herein would have straightway posted the mutation entry in the revenue record on the basis of the Will in question and would not have issued the notice under section 135(D) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and would not have invited objections. Therefore, it is submitted that in absence of any material to show that the petitioner was a party to concocting and/or forging the Will, to continue the criminal proceedings against him would be unnecessary harassment and abuse of process of law. Submitting accordingly it is requested to quash and set aside the impugned criminal proceedings so far as the petitioner herein is concerned, in exercise of powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Mr.Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has heavily relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Sagar Suri and another Versus State of U.P. And others, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 636, in the case of Keki Hormusji Gharda and others Versus Mehervan Rustom Irani and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 475 and in the case of Shakson Belthissor Versus State of Kerala and another, reported in (2009) 14 SCC 466, in support of his prayer to quash and set aside the impugned criminal proceedings inclusive of the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner herein.
5. Mr.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 3 - State & investigating officer as well as Mr.Gaurang Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 - original complainant have requested to dismiss the present petition and not to quash and set side the impugned criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by submitting that now the petitioner has been charge-sheeted and therefore, the petitioner has an alternative remedy to submit appropriate application for discharge before the concerned court. However, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents are not in a position to satisfy this Court as to how the petitioner herein can be said to have committed alleged offences and/or the offence of abetment and/or he was party to the criminal conspiracy in forging the disputed Will.
6. Mr.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State as well as investigating officer is not in a position to point out any evidence and/or material against the petitioner who was at the relevant time Talati-cum- Mantri to show that he abetted the original accused No.1 in forging the disputed Will and/or he was party to the criminal conspiracy with other accused persons in forging the disputed Will. The only contention on behalf of the respondents is that as the petitioner is charge-sheeted, he may be relegated to submit an appropriate application for discharge before the concerned Magistrate.
7. Heard the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length and considered the impugned complaint and charge-sheet papers and averments, allegations and material against the petitioner herein and considering the same it appears that at the relevant time the petitioner was Talati-cum-Mantri before whom an application was submitted by the original accused No.1 for mutating his name in the revenue record on the basis of the Will on the ground that the same has been executed by the father of the original complainant, which is alleged to have been forged and concocted one. On receipt of the said application, after following due procedure as required under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, petitioner made a Kutcha entry in the revenue record and issued notice upon the complainant and other interested persons under section 135 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code inviting objections and the said notice was received by the original complainant and to that the original complainant submitted objections and on receiving objections from the complainant, the petitioner sent the same to the higher officer for consideration i.e. to the Mamlatdar. Therefore, as such the petitioner posted Kutcha entry only and issued notice under section 135(D) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code inviting objections and after receiving the objection, forwarded the same to the higher officer as per the procedure to be followed under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. If the intention of the petitioner was to abet and/or help the original accused No.1 and/or he had entered into criminal conspiracy with other accused persons, in that case he would not have made Kutcha entry in the revenue record and would not have issued notice upon the complainant and others under section 135(D) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code inviting objections. Therefore, as such the petitioner has acted bonafidely and has followed the procedure as required under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. This Court has considered the entire charge-sheet papers and it appears that there is no material and/or evidence against the petitioner herein to show that he had abetted other accused persons in forging the disputed Will and/or he was party to the criminal conspiracy with other accused persons in forging the disputed Will. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed any offence much less the alleged offences.
8. So far as the allegation that wrong date as 13/8/2004 has been mentioned by the petitioner in the notice under section 135(D) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code is concerned, it appears that the same seems to have been mentioned by mistake, as at the bottom of the said notice itself correct date 30/8/2004 is mentioned, however, on the top of the notice instead of 30/8/2004, date has been mentioned as 13/8/2004 by mistake. The same appears to be a bonafide mistake. Therefore, by the aforesaid itself it cannot be said that the petitioner has abetted the offence of forging the Will and/or has hatched the criminal conspiracy along with other accused persons in forging the Will. It is to be noted that as such notice under section 135(D) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code was received by the complainant on 1/9/2004 and the complainant submitted his objections against mutation of the name of the original accused No.1 in the revenue record on the basis of the alleged Will and after receiving the said objections, the same were forwarded by the petitioner to the higher officer for consideration. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any malafide intention on the part of the petitioner and the petitioner has committed the offences, as alleged.
9. As stated above, Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State as well as investigating officer is not in a position to point out any material from the charge- sheet papers by which it can be said that the petitioner was a party to the criminal conspiracy. Under the circumstances, to continue the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be unnecessary harassment to him and the same shall be abuse of process of law and Court. As stated above, the only contention on behalf of the respondents in support of the prayer to dismiss the present petition is that as the petitioner is now charge-sheeted, he should be relegated to submit an appropriate application for discharge before the concerned Magistrate and the impugned criminal proceedings may not be set aside. However, considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of G. Sagar Suri and another (supra); Keki Hormusji Gharda and others (supra) and Shakson Belthissor (supra), the aforesaid contention of the respondents cannot be accepted.
10. In the case of G. Sagar Suri and another (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised even when the application for discharge of the accused is pending with the trial Judge, if the High Court is of the opinion that no case is made out against the accused persons and such criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law.
In the case of Keki Hormusji Gharda and others (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically observed and held that availability of remedy of discharge does not bar petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it is further held that a well-deserved case for quashing of the criminal proceedings should not be thrown out on the ground of availability of remedy of discharge.
In the case of Shakson Belthissor (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the powers of the High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the First Information Report/charge-sheet has held that such power is exercised by the Court to prevent abuse of process of law and court but such a power could be exercised only when the complaint filed by the complainant or the charge-sheet filed by the police do not disclose any offence or when the said complaint is found to be frivolous, vexatious or oppressive.
11. Considering the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as considering the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly when it is found by this Court that no case is made out against the petitioner and there is no material and/or evidence collected during the course of the investigation against the petitioner making out even a prima facie case for the alleged offences, it appears SCR.A/1089/2004 10/10 JUDGMENT that this is a fit case to exercise powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to quash and set aside the impugned criminal proceedings inclusive of the charge-sheet papers.
12. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present petition succeeds. The impugned being Criminal Case No. 384 of 2004 at the relevant time pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad Rural as well as charge-sheet filed by the investigating officer for the offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 502, 120(B) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, are hereby quashed and set aside so far as the petitioner herein - original accused No.3 (as per the charge-sheet) is concerned. However, the same shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the prosecution against other accused persons and they shall be tried by the concerned Court in accordance with law and on merits and without in any way being influenced by the present judgement and order which is QUA petitioner herein only. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
[M.R. SHAH, J.] rafik