Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 339 (GUJ)

Velubha Swarupsinh Sodha v. State of Gujarat

2011-04-22

P.P.BHATT

body2011
Judgment P.P. Bhatt, J.—The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short) for quashing and setting aside the FIR being CR No. I – 9 of 2008 filed by Respondent No. 2 before Khadir Police Station, Taluka Bhachau, District Kachchh at Annexure-A to the petition. 2. Rule was ordered to be issued on 24.3.2009 and ad-interim relief granted earlier was ordered to be continued till further orders. 3. Today, at the time of final hearing of this petition, learned advocate Mr. K.D. Shah for the applicants has invited attention of the Court to the FIR at Annexure-A to the petition and submitted that Respondent No. 2 has filed this complaint in June 2008 for the alleged incident occurred in June 2002. 3.1 Mr. Shah submitted that this complaint is filed only with a view to cause harassment to the applicants and it is in abuse of the process of law. He submitted that there is a delay in filing the complaint and even no proper justification or explanation is given by the complainant for filing the complaint late. 3.2 In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the applicants has referred to and relied upon the judgment rendered by the Honourable the Apex Court in the case of Kishan Singh (Dead) Through L.R.s vs. Gurpal Singh and others, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 775 . He pressed into service Paragraph 22 of the said judgment which reads as under. “In cases where there is a delay in lodging an FIR, the Court has to look for a plausible explanation for such delay. In the absence of such an explanation, the delay may be fatal. The reason for quashing such proceedings may not be merely that the allegations were an afterthought or had given a coloured version of events. In such cases the Court should carefully examine the facts before it for the reason that a frustrated litigant who failed to succeed before the civil Court may initiate criminal proceedings just to harass the other side with mala fide intentions or the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the other party. Chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustrations by cheaply invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal Court. Chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustrations by cheaply invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal Court. The Court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and persecution. In such a case, where an FIR is lodged clearly with a view to spite the other party because of a private and personal grudge and to enmesh the other party in long and arduous criminal proceedings, the Court may take a view that it amounts to an abuse of the process of law in the facts and circumstances of the case. (Vide Chandrapal Singh vs. Maharaj Singh; State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal; G. Sagar Suri vs. State of U.P.; and Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of A.P.).” 3.3 Lastly, Mr. Shah requested to allow this petition. 4. Learned APP Mr.Pandya for the respondent State has submitted that after filing of the complaint, around 15 statements have been recorded and all these persons have supported the say of the complainant. He submitted that six other offences have also been registered against the present applicants and considering the totality of the facts of the present case, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Though served, none appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 2 – original complainant. 6. Having heard learned advocate for the applicants and learned APP for the respondent State and on perusal of the papers, it transpires that Respondent No. 2 has filed the complaint in June 2008 in respect of the alleged incident occurred in June 2002. It also appears that the complaint is filed almost after 6 years without rendering any plausible explanation for such inordinate delay. The reasons assigned in the complaint are absolutely vague and the same suggest that villagers were called by the Collector and the DSP in respect of the incident occurred in June 2008 and the representations were made before them and they were satisfied with the steps taken by the authority concerned and, therefore, they did not take any steps, but since the issue of supply of water remained unresolved, the complainant has filed the present complaint. The complainant has remained silent for almost about 6 years in respect of the alleged incident occurred in June 2002 and filed the complaint only in June 2008. Therefore, the submissions made by learned APP cannot be accepted. The complainant has remained silent for almost about 6 years in respect of the alleged incident occurred in June 2002 and filed the complaint only in June 2008. Therefore, the submissions made by learned APP cannot be accepted. As stated earlier, though served, none appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 2. In this view of the matter, there is a reason to believe that the present complaint is filed with a view to cause harassment to the applicants and amounts to an abuse of the process of law and such an attempt cannot be allowed. 7. Thus, having regards to the above position and in light of the principle laid down by the Honourable the Apex Court in its judgment referred to above and upon carefully looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case wherein inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code are required to be exercised since an attempt made by Respondent No. 2 apparently appears to be an abuse of the process of law. 8. In view of the above discussion, the present petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The FIR being CR No. I – 9 of 2008 filed by Respondent No. 2 before Khadir Police Station, Taluka Bhachau, District Kachchh at Annexure-A to the petition is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. P P P P P