Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 639 (GUJ)

Jayesh Chinubhai Shah v. State of Gujarat

2014-06-10

R.D.KOTHARI

body2014
JUDGMENT R.D. Kothari, J. 1. The applicant prays to quash the FIR registered as C.R. No. I-835 of 2011 at Naroda Police Station, Ahmedabad on 25.12.2011. 2. Rule. Learned APP Mr. K.P. Raval, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of State - respondent No.1. 3. Facts are glaring and registering of complaint by the police is surprising. Respondent No.2 is complainant. He appears to own land i.e. Survey No.640 at Naroda, Ahmedabad. Present applicant had said to have purchased the said land by executing a registered sale deed dated 07.04.2010. The sale price fixed was L 57,72,000/-. The applicant had said to have made payment by six different cheques. Details of which is given in the complaint. It appears that said cheques are bearer cheques. The say of the complainant is that he has presented these cheques to the respective banks, however, balance was insufficient. The complainant has drawn applicant's attention to this. The applicant had said to have stated to the complainant that complainant may sign on the reverse of the bearer cheques and applicant after "encashing" the cheque, he (the applicant) would make payment to the complainant. It is further say of the complainant that accordingly complainant has handed over cheque to the applicant and later on it came to notice of the complainant that applicant has withdrawn the amount from the bank and it is say of the complainant that applicant has not paid the amount to the complainant. 4. The say of the complainant is incredible and it is difficult to believe. The complainant though duly served, has remained absent before this Court. 5. Heard the learned advocate Ms. Divyangna Jhala for Mr. M.R. Amin, learned advocate for the applicant 6. The learned advocate for the applicant drawing attention to relevant material on record has submitted that the complainant has lodged the false complaint against the present applicant. In this regard, learned advocate has drawn attention to relevant material on record. 7. It appears that applicant had issued four cheques of Punjab National Bank, Paldi Branch and two cheques of Corporation Bank, Gurukul Branch. All these six cheques were bearer cheques. Complaint is about all these bearer cheques. 8. Prior to lodging of present complaint, the complainant has filed Civil Suit before City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. It is Civil Suit No.1854 of 2011. All these six cheques were bearer cheques. Complaint is about all these bearer cheques. 8. Prior to lodging of present complaint, the complainant has filed Civil Suit before City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. It is Civil Suit No.1854 of 2011. In the said suit inter alia complainant had prayed that present applicant be restrained from transferring or alienating the suit land in any manner. The complainant has also prayed that applicant be restrained from creating any right or interest of the third party in the suit property. The complainant has also prayed for interim relief in the said suit. The learned City Civil Court was pleased to reject the complainant's plea for interim relief. In his fairly elaborated order, say of the complainant was found to be unacceptable by the City Civil Court, hence, interim relief was refused. 9. Thereafter, present applicant has filed the complaint against respondent No.2 before Metropolitan Magistrate Court on 02.09.2011 alleging that respondent No.2 committed offence punishable under sections 420, 406, 193 etc. of IPC. The said complaint is at Annexure 'B'. In the detailed complaint, it is inter alia alleged that on account of very high rise in price of land in Naroda area, the respondent No.2 after receiving consideration from the present applicant in respect of land in question, is considering to transfer the land to some other party and respondent No.2 is pressurising the present applicant. 10. After filing of the above complaint by the applicant, the present complaint came to be filed by respondent No.2 before Naroda Police Station. It is filed on 25.12.2011. 11. In the complaint, filed by the present applicant, the Metropolitan Court has recorded the statement of complainant and also deposition of bank officers - one N.P. Mathur from Punjab National Bank and one Mr. Prabhuchandra Shekhar of Corporation Bank have deposed on oath. It is clear and specific say of the bank officers that payment of bearer cheques is made after verifying the identity of payee i.e. Shantilal K. Patel (respondent No.2) by obtaining PAN card from him. IT is also their say that they have ensured that PAN card bears the photograph. At the time of deposition, these witnesses produced copy of cheques and copy of PAN card also. It is the say of the bank officials that bank has made payment of all these cheques in question in due course. IT is also their say that they have ensured that PAN card bears the photograph. At the time of deposition, these witnesses produced copy of cheques and copy of PAN card also. It is the say of the bank officials that bank has made payment of all these cheques in question in due course. Further, the bank official had also issued certificate of making payment in due course and copy of the certificate is also produced at the time of deposition. This certificates are at page No.75 and 76. 12. The evidence of bank official clearly falsifies say of the complainant. 13. In Lalita Kumari's case, (2014) 2 SCC 1 , Constitution Bench of Honourable Supreme Court has pointed out that as per the official record, 60 lacs FIRs were registered in the year 2012 for cognizable offences. Emphasising need to register FIR in cognizable offence cases, it was pointed out that equal number of FIRs remain unregistered by the police. The present case shows that while genuine and good cases may have remain unregistered, - the case like the present case which are highly improbable and does not merit, serious consideration gets registered at police station. In the said case, it is also laid down that if the police is in doubt about the commission of cognizable offence, the police may take note of the information and took up the preliminary enquiry. It had also laid down the category of cases which may require preliminary enquiry. One of the category is delayed lodging of FIR. It has held that if the complainant has come forward after lapse of 3 months or more than, then it may took up the preliminary enquiry instead of registering the complaint. In the present case, sale deed is of 07.04.2010. Cheques were issued on the same date. As per the record, Corporation Bank has made payment on 31.03.2014 (page 73 and 74) and Punjab National Bank has made payment in April 2010 (page 57) while respondent No.2 has lodged the complaint on 25.12.2011. Thus, complaint is delayed by over one and half year. Every meritless complaint commits double sin. While taking further steps pursuant to registration of such FIR, would certainly claim Investigation Officer's time, on the other hand, the other genuine and good cases either would not receive timely attention or such deserving cases may go unattended or totally unnoticed. 14. Thus, complaint is delayed by over one and half year. Every meritless complaint commits double sin. While taking further steps pursuant to registration of such FIR, would certainly claim Investigation Officer's time, on the other hand, the other genuine and good cases either would not receive timely attention or such deserving cases may go unattended or totally unnoticed. 14. In short, the present application succeeds and complaint filed by respondent No.2 deserves to be quashed because say of the complainant in the complaint is not possible to believe and further complainant has come forward after lapse of over 1½ years. Beside that, there is sufficient material as referred above i.e. say of the bank officials and relevant documents produced by the bank official. Rejection of interim relief by the City Civil Court in the suit instituted by respondent No.2. In addition to this, it was also pointed out at the time of hearing that after the transaction in question, the respondent No.2 has entered into transaction with the present applicant or his family members. In this regard, attention was drawn to page 166 and 133. It was rightly pointed out that if the consideration of present transaction had not been paid by the present applicant, respondent No.2 would not have enter into subsequent transaction with the present applicant at later stage. 15. In view of above, present application is allowed. FIR lodged at Naroda Police Station, Ahmedabad being C.R. No. I - 835 of 2011 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Application Allowed.