State Of Gujarat & 1 ­

1.0 Present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner herein­original accused to quash and set aside the Criminal Complaint being Inquiry Case No.79 of 1996 pending in the Court of learned JMFC, Dahod.

2.0 That respondent no.2 herein­original complainant has instituted/ filed private complaint under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 3(1)(x) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which has been numbered as Criminal Inquiry Case No.79 of 1996. That initially learned JMFC, Dahod passed an order dated 22.10.1996 sending the said complaint for police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed the Dy.sp (Harijan Cell), Godhra to investigate the case and submit the report. It appears that thereafter the Investigating Officer inquired into and submit “C” Summary Report before the learned JMFC, Dahod. That the learned JMFC, Dahod by order dated 16.7.2001 accepted “C” Summary Report. It appears that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned JMFC, Dahod dated 16.7.2001 passed below Exh.1 passed below Exh.1 in Criminal Inquiry Case No.79 of 1996 in accepting “C” Summary Report, respondent no.2 herein original complainant preferred Criminal Revision Application No.80 of 2001 (Old Number), 8 of 2004 (New Number) and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod dated 22.6.2006 allowed the said Criminal Revision Application and quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate accepting “C” Summary Report. It appears that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod dated 22.6.2006 passed in Criminal Revision Application No.8 of 2004, the petitioner preferred Special Criminal Application No.1824 of 2006. It appears from the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod in the said Criminal Revision Application even the learned advocate for the petitioner also submitted the case on merits by submitting that complaint does not disclose the constitution of any offence and it was also submitted that complaint is not maintainable. That the learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated 17.8.2011 dismissed the aforesaid Special Criminal Application No.1824 of 2006. That thereafter, after dismissal of the aforesaid Special Criminal Application, the petitioner­original accused has preferred present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash and set aside the impugned complaint which has been filed in the year 1996.

3.0 Shri K.V. Shelat, learned advocate for the applicant has vehemently submitted that as such the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged. It is further submitted that the complaint under challenge does not disclose any offence as alleged. It is further submitted that as such no complaint is maintainable in respect of an order under Section 73 AA of the BLRC especially when it was not challenged, as the price of the land was fixed upon permission being granted by the Collector under Section 73 AA of the BLRC and the payment made. It is further submitted that the dispute is purely of a civil nature which has been converted into criminal complaint, which is nothing but an abuse of process of law and Court. Therefore, it is requested to allow present application and to quash and set aside the impugned criminal proceedings.

4.0 Petition is opposed by Shri Dabhi, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State Government. It is submitted that all these submissions which are made now by the learned advocate for the applicant were made earlier before this Court while considering Special Criminal Application No.1824 of 2006 and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the aforesaid Special Criminal Application and therefore, it is not open for the applicant now to contend the same. It is further submitted that as such pursuant to the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod dated 22.6.2006 passed in Criminal Revision Application No.8 of 2004 confirmed by this Court, the case is yet to be re­investigated by an officer not below the cadre of Dy.sp and he is yet to submit the report after investigation and therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present application. It is submitted that present application has been preferred by the applicant only with a view to delay the further inquiry. It is further submitted that the complaint has been filed in the year 1996 and still due to various proceedings, it is still at the stage of further inquiry / re­investigation and therefore, it is requested not to exercise the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5.0 Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that complaint has been filed by respondent no.2 herein­original complainant who is an Adivasi hailing from triable area in the year 1996 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 3(1)(x) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and still the same is at the stage of re­investigation. It is required to be noted that initially the Investigating Officer submitted “C” Summary Report which was accepted by the learned Magistrate, however the same came to be quashed and set aside by the learned Revisional Court by order dated 22.6.2006 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 8 of 2004 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed an order for re­investigation of the case by officer not below the cadre of Dy.sp. It is to be noted that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in not accepting “C” Summary Report granted by the learned Magistrate and ordering for re­investigation of the case, the petitioner preferred Special Criminal Application No.1824 of 2006 before this Court and the learned Single Judge by order dated 17.8.2011 has dismissed the said Special Criminal Application. It is to be noted that at the time of hearing of the aforesaid Special Criminal Application the very learned advocate who is now appearing on behalf of the petitioner made submission on merits before the learned Single Judge and made all the submissions which are made now in the present proceedings and the learned Single Judge has not accepted the same and has dismissed the said Special Criminal Application. Therefore, now it is not open for the petitioner to make the said submissions again which were made earlier at the time of hearing of Special Criminal Application No.1824 of 2006, which were not accepted by the learned Single Judge. Even otherwise, considering the fact that main complaint is of the year 1996 and Dy.sp (Harijan Cell), Godhra has yet to investigate the matter/ case as directed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed by this Court and has yet to submit the report / charge sheet, which is yet to be considered by the learned Magistrate, it appears to the Court that this is not a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to quash and set aside the impugned complaint which is of the year 1996.

6.0 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, applicant fails and same deserve to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. Ad­interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith.

“kaushik”

sd/­ ( M. R. Shah, J. )