Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1932 (GUJ)

Manindersingh Jolly v. State of Gujarat

2016-09-02

A.J.SHASTRI

body2016
JUDGMENT : A.J SHASTRI, J. Present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is filed by the petitioners - original accused Nos. 1 and 3 for seeking quashment of the criminal complaint in the form of FIR being I-C.R No. 106 of 2013 registered before the Ankleshwar GIDC Police Station, Ankleshwar. 2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant is doing the business of embroidery machines in textile and is also having partnership business in the factory, namely, J.S Chemicals situated at Plot No. 4801-A-8 of GIDC, Ankleshwar. It is alleged in the complaint that there are 10 partners in the factory, namely, M/s. J.S Chemicals which came to be started in the year 1993 and the said factory was registered on 21.5.1993 It was alleged in the complaint that on 31.1.2002, the present petitioners i.e. original accused Nos. 1 and 3 along with original accused No. 2 have created one false retirement deed between themselves which came to be noticed by the complainant in the year 2002 when respondent No. 2 started attending the business of factory and thereby, upon an inquiry the fact of creation of retirement deed came to be noticed. Resultantly, a prejudice caused to the complainant since in collusion with each other an attempt was made to alter the structure of partnership with an intent to grab the property of the partnership. By creating such false retirement deed, names of Mr. Ashok Jain, Mr. Karan Singh Jolly were to be introduced as the partners and the said retirement partnership deed in which the signatures of the complainant along with other partners came to be forged. Said retirement deed in collusion with each other essentially by Mr. Maninder Singh Jolly, Mr. Gabharubhai Manjibhai and Mr. Ashok Jain have executed on 31.1.2002 and by virtue of said forged deed of retirement, when Mr. Ashok Jain - accused No. 3, has started attending the factory and interfering in banking and other administrative work of the partnership, it was upon an inquiry noticed and in addition to it, from banks also the names of other partners were deleted. Ashok Jain have executed on 31.1.2002 and by virtue of said forged deed of retirement, when Mr. Ashok Jain - accused No. 3, has started attending the factory and interfering in banking and other administrative work of the partnership, it was upon an inquiry noticed and in addition to it, from banks also the names of other partners were deleted. On further inquiry, it was noticed that this would create a serious prejudice, on 8.5.2003 all the retiring partners lodged their specific objection in the office of GIDC as also in Bank of Baroda, Surat branch on 12.3.2003 as well as with Karurvaishya Bank Ltd. on 29.5.2003 In addition to this lodging of specific objections, it was noticed that it is upon such bogus deed, new bank account came to be opened up in Bank of Baroda, Bombay branch in the form of Current Account No. 48072 and there also, the objections came to be lodged in writing on 19.5.2003 Apparently, the signatures have been forged of other partners including the present complainant and therefore, the complainant was constrained to file the impugned complaint. During the course of time, relying upon such bogus deed of retirement, a suit came to be filed by the present petitioners (original accused Nos. 1 and 3) being Regular Civil Suit No. 117 of 2003 against 8 partners which was later on given the new number i.e. ‘149 of 2006’. A fact has emerged from the complaint that there is a specific assertion of respondent No. 2 herein that vide Exh.44, accused No. 2 - Gabhrubhai Manjibhai on 23.10.2003 had filed an application and declared on affidavit that in the said civil suit, he has not signed and therefore, it appeared to the complainant that accused Nos. 1 and 3 have filed a suit fictitiously. The complainant has also specifically asserted that w.e.f 1.4.2003 relinquishment has taken place and the civil suit came to be filed on the basis of said false and bogus deed. Said deed came to be notarized and produced by Mr. Ashok Jain (original accused No. 3) on 24.4.2013 The original deed appeared to be with accused Nos. The complainant has also specifically asserted that w.e.f 1.4.2003 relinquishment has taken place and the civil suit came to be filed on the basis of said false and bogus deed. Said deed came to be notarized and produced by Mr. Ashok Jain (original accused No. 3) on 24.4.2013 The original deed appeared to be with accused Nos. 1 and 3 and therefore, when this copy of deed came to be produced on 24.4.2013, the complainant has filed the present complaint on 7.6.2013 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 193, 120B r/w Section 114 of the IPC and it is in this premise when the respondent was being conveyed to settle the issue to close the chapter, respondent No. 2 has filed the complaint in the form of FIR which is impugned in the present petition. 3. On 26.6.2013, this petition came to be admitted and in the meantime, it was ordered not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners in connection with FIR being I-C.R No. 106 of 2013. Said interim relief time to time has been extended and the matter has come up for final disposal. 4. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri P.M Thakkar with learned advocate, Mr. Firoz Pathan appearing on behalf of petitioners has contended that the controversy involved in the complaint is purely of a civil nature and with a view to apply pressure upon the petitioners at a belated stage, the complaint came to be filed and therefore, contended that this is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of law. Learned counsel further submitted that prima facie averments contained in the impugned complaint are not attracting any ingredients for which the offences have been alleged. Learned counsel submitted that there are voluminous documents attached to the petition based upon which it can be reflected that essentially when the complainant did not satisfy himself or did not achieve the result of compromise talks to apply the pressure upon the applicants, the complaint came to be filed. Learned counsel submitted that there are voluminous documents attached to the petition based upon which it can be reflected that essentially when the complainant did not satisfy himself or did not achieve the result of compromise talks to apply the pressure upon the applicants, the complaint came to be filed. Shri P.M Thakkar, learned Senior Counsel has further drawn the attention of the Court that respondent No. 2 was very much aware about the fact of so called bogus deed right from the day when he stepped into the civil suit in which this alleged deed was very much part of the civil suit and therefore, for a considerable long time, there appears to be an unexplained silence on the part of respondent No. 2 to bring the complaint. There is no whisper about the explanation of such delay in brining the impugned complaint. Even in the complaint itself, there are averments to indicate that the so called bogus deed was very much part of the record which deed is dated ‘31.1.2002’. Learned counsel has further drawn the attention of the Court about the averments contained in the suit which is attached to the petition compilation in which respondent No. 2 is very much a party to the proceedings as defendant No. 1 and has further drawn attention to the list of documents which is produced at Pg.80.A of the petition compilation. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the documents at Item Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are very much part of the record and from that day, the complainant was aware about the fact. Learned Senior Counsel has also drawn the attention to the averments contained in the reply which has been filed way back in October, 2003 and referring to the same, learned Senior Counsel has further drawn attention to Para. 8 of the said reply in which a specific assertion is made by the respondent (original defendant of the suit) that offence is committed and this was way back on 20.10.2003 But surprisingly the complaint came to be filed only in June, 2013 and there appears to be no explanation of whatsoever nature. 8 of the said reply in which a specific assertion is made by the respondent (original defendant of the suit) that offence is committed and this was way back on 20.10.2003 But surprisingly the complaint came to be filed only in June, 2013 and there appears to be no explanation of whatsoever nature. By referring to the aforesaid aspect, learned Senior Counsel has drawn attention to the averments of the complaint itself, more particularly last paragraph of the complaint wherein, it has been specifically asserted that time and again settlement talks have taken place but there is no fruitful result. With the result the complainant was constrained to file the complaint. Meaning thereby the complainant has waited for an opportunity to excavate something and has remained conveniently silent for all these years right from 2003 to 2013 and then, has tried to put the criminal law into motion for the purpose of achieving his own motive. Learned Senior Counsel has further drawn the attention that the very respondent had filed a criminal case before the GIDC, Ankleshwar for the very same offence as alleged. But the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that nothing further precipitated by respondent No. 2 and thereby, criminal machinery is put to motion at a convenient time and at the sweet will of respondent No. 2 which is nothing but a clear example of abuse of process of law. It is further submitted that an opinion of hand writing expert which is produced at Pg.144 of the petition compilation wherein, vide Item No. 8 the expert has opined that it is not possible to give definite opinion on the disputed signature which is related to the complainant and by referring to this, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that respondent No. 2 has made an attempt to mis-utilize the criminal machinery by lodging the complaint either to apply pressure upon the petitioners to come to his terms or to deviate himself from the civil proceedings. It was submitted that very alleged deed is a center of controversy in the civil suit which is at large before the competent civil court and therefore, this controversy which is tried to be generated by respondent No. 2 since same is the subject matter of civil suit, no fruitful purpose will be achieved except allowing the respondent No. 2 to abuse the process of law. Shri P.M Thakker has submitted that it is a settled position of law that once the controversy is essentially of a civil nature and the civil proceedings are very much at large before the competent civil court, allowing prosecution of the same subject mater would tantamount to an abuse of process of law and therefore, the criminal machinery may not be allowed to be misused by the complainant. Learned Senior Counsel has candidly submitted that the petitioners have no objection if the civil court comes to the conclusion that the deed is forged one and not generating any confidence, they may be dealt with accordingly even under the criminal prosecution. But, at this stage, during the pendency of civil suit which is of 2003, to allow the criminal machinery to be utilized by respondent No. 2 would be nothing but amounts to misuse the process and therefore, the dispute pertaining to civil nature cannot be allowed to be converted into criminal process. Learned Senior Counsel has further drawn attention that the other partners except respondent No. 2, whose statements have been recorded, have not filed such kind of complaint and therefore, the grievance raised by respondent No. 2 is aimed at excavating something from the petitioners which is otherwise not available to him and therefore, the entire prosecution is aimed at malafide intent and therefore, such attempt may not be allowed to be encouraged and this gross misuse of law be carbed by granting the relief as prayed for in this petition. Learned Senior Counsel, while contending this, has cited that certain decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue, which would be dealt with at an appropriate stage in the present judgment and by referring to this, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the complaint in question deserves to be quashed in the interest of justice. No other submissions are made. 5. As against this, learned counsel Mr. N.M Kapadia appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 (original complainant) has contended that there are several disputed questions of fact relating to controversy in question and therefore, no inherent jurisdiction of an extraordinary nature be exercised. No other submissions are made. 5. As against this, learned counsel Mr. N.M Kapadia appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 (original complainant) has contended that there are several disputed questions of fact relating to controversy in question and therefore, no inherent jurisdiction of an extraordinary nature be exercised. Learned counsel has further contended that there are several cases pending against this very petitioners and at least 4 different complaints are within the knowledge of respondent No. 2 and therefore, in an application filed in this main proceedings by way of filing affidavit-in-reply in Criminal Misc. Application No. 15899 of 2016 from Pg.15 onwards, the said complaints have been attached and by bringing this to the notice of the Court, it was contended by learned counsel not to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction favouring the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has tried to explain the delay which has been projected by the petitioners and submitted that the delay, on the contrary, is attributable to the accused and when the document in question is produced in the civil proceedings in 2013, the complaint came to be filed immediately upon noticing the same. It was also contended by learned counsel that this offence which has been alleged is a continuance offence and therefore, as soon as that cause has arisen, immediately complaint came to be lodged. Learned counsel has relied upon some of the decisions delivered by various courts, to which at an appropriate stage, this Court would like to deal with and therefore, to summarize the contention, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has stated that this is not the stage where extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is to be exercised. Learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the opinion dated 30.7.2013 of Forensic Document Examiner which is produced at Pg.232 of petition compilation wherein, it has been specifically observed by the expert that deed of reconstitution of partnership on retirement of eight partners dated 31.1.2002, the disputed signatures are not written by one and the same writer. Learned counsel therefore, submitted that this requires detail examination and the offence is of a serious nature, no interference be called for in inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel therefore, submitted that this requires detail examination and the offence is of a serious nature, no interference be called for in inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel has further submitted that there are series of decisions wherein, it has been propounded that the High Court should loath in interfering in investigation to be undertaken by an executive and therefore, simply because the civil suit is pending, it cannot be said that criminal complaint may not be allowed. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 further submitted that civil suit is based upon a controversy in which a specific prayer of a different nature is asked for by the plaintiff, whereas the complaint in question is related to a serious offence of forgery and therefore, simply because the disputed deed is a part of record of the civil suit, it cannot be presumed that no offence is made out. It is submitted that once the offence is lodged before the appropriate authority, said the authority must be allowed to proceed further to arrive at a truth of allegation. Learned counsel also submitted that the allegations which are made in the complaint are serious in nature, prima facie reflecting an offence being made out and therefore, at this stage of the proceeding, the investigation cannot be hampered or throttled by exercising inherent jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that the law is aptly clear which need not be elaborated any further. Learned counsel further submitted that the recent trend on exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is clearly defined by the Hon'ble Apex Court in which this power should be exercised sparingly and therefore, there is no embargo under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C that simply because the civil suit is pending, the criminal law may not be allowed to operate. Even otherwise learned counsel submitted that these petitioners are entangled in series of offences and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel has further submitted that a specific letter was written on 27.8.2014 indicating that the petitioners are influential persons and therefore, would frustrate the investigation and requested the Assistant Superintendent of Police to inquire into the matter. The said letter is attached to the affidavit filed by the complainant on 13.7.2016 in Criminal Misc. Learned counsel has further submitted that a specific letter was written on 27.8.2014 indicating that the petitioners are influential persons and therefore, would frustrate the investigation and requested the Assistant Superintendent of Police to inquire into the matter. The said letter is attached to the affidavit filed by the complainant on 13.7.2016 in Criminal Misc. Application filed by the State for vacating interim relief and by bringing it to the notice of this Court, learned counsel submitted that no interference be ma de in the interest of justice. Learned counsel further submitted that the FIR is not an encyclopedia as held by series of decisions and therefore, every minute details is not expected to be incorporated in the FIR. Whatever has been averred in the complaint is sufficient enough to prima facie attract the offences which are alleged in the complaint and therefore, learned counsel requested the Court not to entertain the petition. It was also submitted by learned counsel that detail affidavit which has been filed in the present proceedings wherein, it was specifically contended that merit and demerit of the allegations cannot be examined in Section 482 proceedings and further similarity and dissimilarity of different subject matter also cannot examine in the proceeding under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C It was asserted in affidavit-in-sur-rejoinder filed by the complainant that Shri Himmatbhai Joshi, who has filed the affidavit, same cannot be considered because said Shri Himmatbhai Joshi is the witness of present petitioners and such an affidavit is an afterthought moved by the petitioners. It was also submitted that contradictory stand has been taken as compared to the averments made in the civil suit and therefore, this being a case based upon highly disputed facts, no such detail examination be undertaken in Section 482 proceedings. On the contrary, in affidavit-in-reply filed on 8.6.2016 during the pendency of this proceedings, a letter was written to the concerned police authority to expedite the investigation considering the letter and spirit of the order of this Court. However, the order of this Court is mis-interpreted and no further investigation, after the opinion of the hand writing expert, is undertaken and therefore, by contending this, learned counsel has requested the Court to dismiss the petition. However, the order of this Court is mis-interpreted and no further investigation, after the opinion of the hand writing expert, is undertaken and therefore, by contending this, learned counsel has requested the Court to dismiss the petition. While contending this, with a view to substantiate the stand of the respondent No. 2, few averments from affidavit-in-reply have been brought to the notice of this Court along with the documents and ultimately, submitted that that no extraordinary jurisdiction inherent in nature be exercised to scuttle the investigation which is to be undertaken pursuant to the complaint which has been filed. It has been submitted that the allegations which are leveled in the complaint are absolutely criminal in nature and cannot be said to be civil in nature and therefore, no interference be made at this stage of the proceedings. Learned counsel submitted that ultimately after the investigation, the petitioners are not deprived of any liberty and if after the completion of investigation, anything found contrary the petitioner can certainly avail an appropriate remedy upon filing of the report of the investigation and therefore, at this stage of the proceedings, request is made not to interfere with. No other submissions are made. 7. Learned APP, Mr. Kartik Raval for the State submitted that the report indicates that some offence is made out. It was also submitted that the investigation cannot be hampered in such background of alleged serious offence and submitted that the complaint is at initial stage and therefore, the investigation of it should not be intercepted in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Learned APP also submitted that the petitioners will have an appropriate remedy at an appropriate stage if aggrieved after investigation and therefore, since the petitioners are left with other remedy at an appropriate stage, this is not the stage where the Court may hamper the process of investigation and therefore, ultimately submitted not to interfere with the present proceedings and dismiss the same by vacating the interim relief forthwith. Learned APP further submitted that the State on the contrary has filed an application for vacating interim relief and the same deserves to be considered in the light of the afore-mentioned circumstances prevailing on record and ultimately, requested the Court to dismiss the petition. 8. Having heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and having considered the records of the case, the following facts are emerging. 8. Having heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and having considered the records of the case, the following facts are emerging. (a) It appears that the disputed document for which the complaint came to be filed is the subject matter of the Civil Suit which is pending before the competent Court. (b) It appears that alongwith the list of documents attached to the plaint, this disputed document which is very much a part of the record the Civil Suit. On Page No. 80.A of the petition compilation, the list of documents reflects that Item No. 1 is the very disputed document for which the complaint came to be filed and therefore, it appears that right from 2003, this very document is the subject matter of controversy entangled in the Suit proceedings. (c) It is also not reflected from the material on record that though the complainant is very much aware about this document has pleaded ignorance for a considerable long time and has now taken up the stand that in 2012 when the document is produced that he came to know about this fact and then filed the complaint. The position as stated is very much in contrast to this stand. (d) It also appears from the record that pursuant to the disputed document dated 15.10.1992 for a long passage of time, the parties have practically adjusted themselves to the said adjustment in respect of the partnership and it appears that it is only in the 2012, except the present complainant, no partners have filed any proceedings. (e) It is also appearing from the record that the present complainant except filing this complaint in 2013, has neither filed any proceedings nor has challenged the said disputed documents in the complaint during this period. (f) It is also emerging from the record and more particularly from the averments contained in the complaint itself that the respondent complainant was aware about this fact of arrangement which has been stated to have been forged. The complainant has filed the complaint only when the issue has not been settled and therefore, for all these years, the complainant appears to have acted as a fence seater and when only he did not achieve his goal of settlement, appears to have filed the present complaint. The complainant has filed the complaint only when the issue has not been settled and therefore, for all these years, the complainant appears to have acted as a fence seater and when only he did not achieve his goal of settlement, appears to have filed the present complaint. (g) The record of the petition indicates that the present complainant - Himmatbhai Jivabhai Savani was very much a party to the Civil Suit as defendant No. 1 and in that suit, the order of injunction below Exhibit 5 is also granted in favour of the plaintiff of that Suit on 29.12.2005 and if the said interim order is to be seen, on Page 130 of the petition compilation, the operative part of the said order indicates that the defendants are restrained from interfering in the business of the firm. For perusal, the operative part of the said order is reproduced hereinafter:- “The application at Exh. 05 is hereby granted and the defendants are restrained from interference in the business of the plaintiff-firm. And also directed not to send any written application or not to make any obstruction with the business of the plaintiff and third party or any other Government body or Bank, till the final decision of the suit.” (h) Further, it is emerging from the record that large number of documents are attached to the petition compilation as if a mini trial is to be undertaken/conducted. (i) The records of the case also indicate that the laboratory examination conducted by the Director of Forensic Science has opined that no definite opinion can be expressed on the disputed signature at Item No. 8 of the said opinion produced at Page No. 414. (j) It is also appearing from the record that the very controversy about the partnership firm is entangled in the civil proceedings with regard to the business and affair of the partnership firm and the Civil Suit which has been filed is seized at the competent forum at Ankleshwar and therefore, substantially, the very controversy which is being generated after an enormous delay appears to be before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction in the form of a Civil Suit. A bare look of the complaint would clearly indicate that only when the dispute has not been settled, the complaint came to be filed for a circumstance which had occurred prior to almost a period of more than ten years. (k) It appears thus from the overall record that the complainant had acted as a fence seater. Realizing that the said controversy is proceeding ahead in the civil proceedings, a complaint appears to have been filed for the very same documents which form a part of the civil proceedings filed in the year 2003 and after an inordinate delay in the year 2013, a complaint came to be filed. 9. This aforesaid circumstances takes the Court to some of the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue of exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:- (a) In a case reported in (2015) 1 SCC 513 (Rajib Ranjan v. R. Vijaykumar), the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with an issue related to civil proceedings vis-a-viz a criminal complaint, propounded a feature analysing the chronology of events and has held that allegations of fabricating records were mischievously made just to give colour of criminality to a civil case and further, the same were made after losing battle in civil proceedings. Hence, the Apex Court was of the opinion that the complaint was not bona-fide amounted to misuse and abuse of the process of law and thereby, quashed the complaint. (b) Now, if the case on hand is to be seen, it is quite clear that the disputed document was forming part of the Civil suit way back in 2003 and taking advantage of reiteration of production in the year 2012, in 2013, a complaint came to be filed. The record as stated above indicates that the respondent complainant is very much a part of the civil proceedings and was shown as defendant No. 1 way back in 2003 and therefore, the ratio laid down by Apex Court appears to be applicable to the case on hand and therefore, the relevant extract contained in the Paragraph of the above decision is reproduced hereunder:- “24. Having regard to the circumstances narrated and explained above, we are also of the view that attempt is made by the respondent to convert a case of civil nature into criminal prosecution. Having regard to the circumstances narrated and explained above, we are also of the view that attempt is made by the respondent to convert a case of civil nature into criminal prosecution. In a case like this, High Court would have been justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It would be of benefit to refer to the judgment in the case of Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736 , wherein the Court adversely commented upon this very tendency of filing criminal complaints even in cases relating to commercial transaction for which civil remedy is available is available or has been availed. The Court held that the following observations of the Court in this behalf are taken note of: “13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P, (2000) 2 SCC 636 , this Court observed: (SCC p. 643, para 8) “It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” 14. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” 14. While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law. One positive step that can be taken by the courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of innocent parties, is to exercise their power under Section 250 CrPC more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant. Be that as it may.” 25. In Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1 , the Court reiterated the scope and ambit of power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code in the following words: “23. This Court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit of courts' powers under Section 482 CrPC. Every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 24. Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the could would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the statute. Discussion of decided cases 25. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the could would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the statute. Discussion of decided cases 25. Reference to the following cases would reveal that the courts have consistently taken the view that they must use this extraordinary power to prevent injustice and secure the ends of justice. The English courts have also used inherent power to achieve the same objective. It is generally agreed that the Crown Court has inherent power to protect its process from abuse. In Connelly v. DPP, 1 1964 AC 1254 Lord Devlin stated that where particular criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of process, the court is empowered to refuse to allow the indictment to proceed to trial. Lord Salmon in DPP v. Humphrys, 1977 AC 1 stressed the importance of the inherent power when he observed that it is only if the prosecution amounts to an abuse of the process of the court and is oppressive and vexatious that the judge has the power to intervene. He further mentioned that the court's power to prevent such abuse is of great constitutional importance and should be jealously preserved. 46. The court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise the accused. On analysis of the aforementioned cases, we are of the opinion that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down an inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Inherent jurisdiction of the High Courts under Section 482 CrPC though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when it is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the statute itself and in the aforementioned cases. In view of the settled legal position, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.” (c) In yet another decision in the case of Pooja Ravinder Devidasani v. State of Mahrashtra reported in (2014) 16 SCC 1 , where also the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered in a similar way and found that the proceedings are required to be quashed from being misused and in Paragraph 30 it was held as under: “30. Putting the criminal law into motion is not a matter of course. To settle the scores between the parties which are more in the nature of a civil dispute, the parties cannot be permitted to put the criminal law into motion and courts cannot be a mere spectator to it. Before a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence under Sections 138/141 of the NI Act, making a person vicariously liable has to ensure strict compliance with the statutory requirements. The superior courts should maintain purity in the court. The High Court ought to have quashed the complaint against the appellant which is nothing but a pure abuse of process of law.” (d) In another decision in the case of D.P Gulati, Manager Accounts, Jetking Infotrain Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2015) 11 SCC 730, the Apex Court while dealing with the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has propounded that this exercise of power is aimed at to prevent the abuse of process of law and the duty under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure is to see and secure the ends of justice and also that no proceedings are abused. The relevant paragraph of the said decision is worth to be taken note of and hence, reproduced hereinafter:- “7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions made before us. From a bare perusal of Section 482 of the Code, it is clear that the object of exercise of power under the section is to prevent abuse of process of law, and to secure ends of justice. In Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, this Court has enumerated the steps required to be followed before invoking inherent jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code as under:- “30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC: 30.1 Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2 Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false? 30.3 Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4 Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.5 If the answer is all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” 8. In Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P, explaining the law in the similar circumstances, as in the present case, this Court observed, in para 17, as under:- “17. It is no doubt true that the courts have to be careful while exercising the power under Section 482 CrPC. In Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P, explaining the law in the similar circumstances, as in the present case, this Court observed, in para 17, as under:- “17. It is no doubt true that the courts have to be careful while exercising the power under Section 482 CrPC. At the same time we should not allow a litigant to file vexatious complaint to otherwise settle their scores by setting the criminal law into motion, which is pure abuse of process of law and it has to be interdicted at the threshold.” In this very decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also analysed the general grounds on which the petition for quashing can be viewed while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, even in the recent pronouncement also there is no straight jacket formula that when a criminal complaint is filed, it is to be put to a logical end if a bare reading of the complaint indicates that if no offence is made out, the High Court can certainly exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to curb the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. 10. Now, in the backdrop of the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the recent pronouncement of the Apex Court if we revert back to the case on hand, it is quite clear that the complainant appears to have tried to take the complaint as a level to pressurize the petitioners so as to excavate something otherwise there is no logical circumstance available which warrants the complainant to wait for such a long period of more than ten years as stated above. The document in controversy is very much part of the record of the Civil Suit right from 2003, to which the complainant is very much a party - defendant No. 1 and therefore, this unexplained conduct is substantiating the version of the petitioners to indicate that the complaint is filed with a view to apply pressurizing tactics and with oblique motive. This fact is being further substantiated by the averments of the complaint itself. This fact is being further substantiated by the averments of the complaint itself. If the last portion of the complaint if can be seen, the complainant is very much aware about the fact of Civil Suit and is very much a party to the same, but has filed the complaint only when the frequent compromise talks have not attained any fruitful result to him and that is the reason why the complaint came to be filed. The averments contained in the complaint ipso-facto make it clear that the respondent complainant has waited all throughout and gambled the proceedings to see that a compromise can be made somehow between the parties. But when that did not take place, a criminal complaint came to be filed after more than a period of ten years. It is true that no litigant can be allowed to take the law on hand like this and initiate the serious issue of a criminal complaint at his own sweet will and at his own convenient time. If the litigant is allowed to play with the proceedings like this, Court is sure that this tantamounts to abuse of process of law and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the complaint came to be filed at a much belated stage solely with a view to see that some pressure be built upon the petitioners so as to achieve something from the petitioners. The fact is further noticed and it is available from record that none of the other partners have generated any controversy with regard to the document in question and have not filed any such kind of prosecution. It is only the complainant who filed the complaint after more than a period of ten years which reflected the clear malafide intention and there is nothing which can be said to be bona-fide in nature and therefore, the complaint being part of this strategy applied by the complainant, the same may not be allowed to be precipitated any further. 11. 11. It is also emerging from the record that if the complainant is aware about the fact of this document right from 2003, yet the complainant has not filed any Civil Suit for questioning such a document nor has filed any complaint for more than a period of ten years and it is only at his convenience has come out with the complaint which reflects as no offence being committed. Simply by asserting something in the complaint, it does not become an offence. 12. A fact is further to be taken note of that though this very document was the subject matter of Civil Suit, it appears that there is no application filed in the Civil Court by this very complainant questioning the forged signature upon it for filling complaint though the said document was relied upon as part of evidence and therefore, this questionable conduct appears to be of such nature whereby it appears to this Court that the complaint has been filed with a view to abuse the process of law. It is only in this backdrop of the facts that it appears to this Court that if the complaint is allowed to be precipitated further, it tantamounts to encouraging a litigant to misuse the process of law and would not result into ends of justice. Ample opportunity was available to the complainant right from 2003, and therefore, the complainant may not be allowed to convert a grievance of civil nature to give a colour of criminal law. This is more particularly in view of the fact that hand writing expert opinion is not certain on the issue and no other partners have also come forward with such a plea which is being taken by the complainant after almost a period of more than ten years and therefore, a civil nature of grievance may not be allowed to be converted into criminal proceedings by allowing the complaint to sustain and therefore, the complaint deserves to quashed. 13. In addition to the aforesaid reflection of the Court, it is settled position of law that powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not to be exercised for deciding disputed questions of fact and the said powers are certainly not to be exercised on the basis of the documents attached to the petition. 13. In addition to the aforesaid reflection of the Court, it is settled position of law that powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not to be exercised for deciding disputed questions of fact and the said powers are certainly not to be exercised on the basis of the documents attached to the petition. The voluminous record placed by both the sides indicates that there are series of disputed questions of fact in the main grievance related to the document as seized by the Civil Court for onward adjudication. It is also appearing from the record that the Court is not expected to examine and adjudicate the merits or demerits of the complaint when prima-facie there is suggestion of disputed version of both the sides and therefore in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court is not to undertake a mini trial so as to adjudicate by examination of series of documents attached to the petition compilation and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that when essentially the core grievance of the complainant is seized by the Civil Court referred to above, allowing the complainant to proceed ahead with the complaint in question is nothing but would tantamount to encouraging the abuse of process of law and therefore, in the background of facts compels the Court to see that the complaint may not be allowed to stand in the eye of law. 14. While taking this view, though it is not warranted, the Court has looked at various documents attached to the petition compilation. The Court has seen the averments contained in Special Civil Suit No. 117/2003, the plaint produced at Page 67 of the petition compilation wherein the present complainant is the defendant No. 1 and the suit came to be filed for the purpose of seeking declaration and permanent injunction and also the damages. In Paragraph 4 of the plaint, there is a specific reference to the document of January 2002 which has given rise to the complainant to lodge the complaint and a perusal of relief clause also would indicate that this very controversy which is generated by the complainant in 2013 is part of subject matter of the Civil Suit. In Paragraph 4 of the plaint, there is a specific reference to the document of January 2002 which has given rise to the complainant to lodge the complaint and a perusal of relief clause also would indicate that this very controversy which is generated by the complainant in 2013 is part of subject matter of the Civil Suit. Further while examining the record at Page 80/1, a list of documents is attached wherein also the documents related to the controversy is part of the record coupled with the fact that further if the reply filed by the original defendant to the suit proceedings including the complaint, the said reply which is attached at Page 82 of the petition compilation wherein the very controversy is the subject matter taken up in Paragraph 8 on Page 85 and at the bottom of the said paragraph, there is a clear assertion that the offence is alleged to have been committed. Further, this plea is taken by the very complainant in the Civil Suit in October 2003 that is almost prior to a period of more than ten years. What prevented the complainant to put criminal law into motion at this stage especially when the complainant now felt serious that some offence is committed?, there is complete absence of any cogent explanation. 15. The Court has further examined the record wherein it has been found that the interim order passed in the Civil Suit on 29.12.2005 wherein also the defendants including the complainant have been restrained from interfering with the business of the partnership firm. Now, after visualising this position prevailing on the record of the civil proceedings, Court is of the opinion that no fruitful result would be achieved except misuse of process of law if the present complaint is allowed to stand in the eye of law. Further document examination reveal that there is no definite expert opinion on the issue related to signature contained in the disputed document and the opinion of hand writing which has been placed on record by the other side is not of such nature which would repose any confidence in the allegations levelled in the complaint. Further document examination reveal that there is no definite expert opinion on the issue related to signature contained in the disputed document and the opinion of hand writing which has been placed on record by the other side is not of such nature which would repose any confidence in the allegations levelled in the complaint. If we see the document in the form of opinion of laboratory examination produced at Page 414, it is quite clear that there is no definite opinion reflected by the authority and therefore, without verifying the documents available on record which are not reflecting any bonafides of the complainant in bringing the criminal complaint in 2013 and therefore, essentially when the civil proceedings are very much large before Court, allowing the complainant to proceed further is in fact, to encourage the conduct of the litigant to put the criminal law into motion at his own sweet will and at his own convenient time. The complaint in question is not prima-facie reflecting any offence being committed by the petitioners. Therefore, the background of facts warrants this Court to exercise power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of the petitioner. 16. Apart from the aforesaid circumstances which are emerging from the record, a bare look of the averments contained in the complaint is also not satisfying the ingredients of the offences which are alleged. On the basis of such general averments which are not satisfying the test of ingredients of the offences alleged, it is hardly acceptable to the Court to agree with the submission made by the counsel for the respondent-complainant not to exercise inherent jurisdiction. The sole aim of the complainant was just to thwart the process so as to see that some way can be found out by applying pressure under the guise of the impugned complaint. Since the very conduct of the complainant is reflecting an intent to abuse the process of law, the Court is not dealing in detail and scanning and adjudicating each of the ingredients of offences which are alleged has no rowing inquiry or mini trial to be conducted in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the very conduct of the complainant is reflecting an intent to abuse the process of law, the Court is not dealing in detail and scanning and adjudicating each of the ingredients of offences which are alleged has no rowing inquiry or mini trial to be conducted in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As discussed above, prima facie, no offence is made out and the bundle of papers attached to the petition on the contrary reflects a clear avoidance from the civil litigation which is already in mix of its adjudication and therefore no short circuit to the process of law being incorrect and therefore in the absence of any cogent material to establish an offence, it is not possible to this Court to accept the plea of the respondent-complainant and the Court found that this is a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 17. At this stage, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has candidly submitted that if ultimately the document is found to be not genuine by the Civil Court after adjudication, they are readily available to face the criminal prosecution on the basis of same cogent material and therefore in view of the aforesaid facts of the case, it appears to this Court that no abuse of process of law be allowed to operate at the instance of the respondent No. 2. Therefore, the contentions which have been canvassed by the petitioners appears to be appealable and are accepted. 18. While expressing this view, the Court was requested to consider some of decisions delivered by the Courts and cited by learned Advocate for the respondent. Now before dwelling with that, the proposition of law is on both way and there is no straight jacket formula that a complaint once filed cannot be interfered with in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 19. Learned Advocate Mr. Kapadia appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 has taken the Court to a series of decisions in the case of Udai Shankar Awasthi v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2013) 2 SCC435, (2006) 6 SCC 728 , (2006) 6 SCC 736 as well as (2013) 10 SCC 581 . 19. Learned Advocate Mr. Kapadia appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 has taken the Court to a series of decisions in the case of Udai Shankar Awasthi v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2013) 2 SCC435, (2006) 6 SCC 728 , (2006) 6 SCC 736 as well as (2013) 10 SCC 581 . In addition to which, learned Advocate placed reliance on the decision in the case of Harnam Singh v. Everest Construction Co. reported in (2004) 6 SCC 754 as well as in the case of C.P Subhash v. Inspector of Police, Chennai reported in 2013 AIR SCW 4014 and contended that the background of this decision would lead to a proposition that powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may not be exercised. 20. First of all, while considering the decision cited above namely in (2013) 2 SCC 435 , which is on the issue about continuing offences, and in the said decision, the Court has considered the delay in approaching the Court and explanation thereof in that ca se repeated representations were made and after the representations were rejected and communicated to the parties, the complainant in that case launched the prosecution. In the background of that fact, the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the issue whereas in the present case on hand, no such factual detail is visible. On the contrary, it appears that from a bare reading of the complaint that settlement talks were conducted between the parties and had not attained any finality to those talks. After more than a period of 10 years, a criminal complaint came be to filed. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the said decision cited has no direct applicability. Of course, the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in that decision to which there is no dispute but after respectfully considering the same, this Court is of the opinion that background of these facts are not such in which such a ratio can be made applicable. 21. Of course, the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in that decision to which there is no dispute but after respectfully considering the same, this Court is of the opinion that background of these facts are not such in which such a ratio can be made applicable. 21. Another decision which has been cited is that of (2006) 6 SCC 728 , the authority also cited the decision relied to the cognisance issuance of process and in that context, the Hon'ble Apex Court propounded that no interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with statutory powers of Courts to invoke in a cognizable offence were held not permissible. Hence, when investigating any matter and when no police report is submitted the proceedings could not have been quashed by the High Court. 22. In the case on hand, the facts as emerging are that the dispute pertains to partnership and its re-constitution which had occurred somewhere around 2002 which led the parties to bring a Suit before the competent Civil Court in the year 2003 and in the said civil proceedings, the very disputed document is the subject matter of adjudication in which after hearing the parties, even an injunction has been confirmed in favour of the original complainant where way back in 2005, un-disputedly the complainant is very much a party to the said civil proceedings and has contested the Civil Suit. In addition thereto, the present complaint is filed by the complainant in the year 2013, undisputedly after more than 10 years by now and this Court had granted interim relief in this case right from June 2013 and in the proceedings produced before the Court reveal that no concrete further steps have been taken in response to the complaint in question. The record indicates that in the month of June 2016, surprisingly an application came to be filed by the State authority to vacate the interim order which interim relief was not prejudicial to the investigation further. Still however, it appears that no conclusive steps have been taken with regard to the investigation of the complaint for all this period. Therefore, the question of intercepting had never arisen to the prosecution. Still however, it appears that no conclusive steps have been taken with regard to the investigation of the complaint for all this period. Therefore, the question of intercepting had never arisen to the prosecution. The complaint cannot now be therefore allowed to be utilized as lever to be further abused and therefore, respectfully agreeing with the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the background of this fact indicates that the said ratio may not be applied as a straight jacket formula. 23. Yet in another decision which has been reported in (2006) 6 SCC736, again this Court has not disputed the proposition of law that once a civil remedy is available, no criminal law be allowed to be put into motion. 24. In a later decision reported in (2013) 10 SCC 581 , the facts of the case are clearly reflecting that there was a partnership firm pursuant to the deed of partnership dated 05.03.2002 and in the said case, it was alleged that the forged deed dated 06.03.2003 was tried to be operated upon to the detriment of the complainant. In that case, the complaint came to be filed prima-facie in the year 2013 itself, whereas in the present case, the grievance is of the year 2002-2003, the civil suit is already filed in the year 2003. It is well within the knowledge of the complainant and the complainant has faced the said Civil Suit and at a convenient time in the year 2013 only, the present complaint came to be filed and therefore, the decision which has been cited by learned Advocate for the respondent are not to be applied as a straight jacket formula. It is further well settled by catena of decisions that slight change in facts would make a world of difference in applying ratio as a precedent and therefore, each case is depending upon the individual facts and therefore, the proposition of law laid down is to be viewed in the context of facts of that case and if there is any similarity, the same would be made applicable. Here in the instant case, no such similarity is found and therefore, the Court is of the opinion that the judgments cited above are not applicable. Similar is the position with respect to the decisions in the case of Harnam Singh v. Everest Construction Co. Here in the instant case, no such similarity is found and therefore, the Court is of the opinion that the judgments cited above are not applicable. Similar is the position with respect to the decisions in the case of Harnam Singh v. Everest Construction Co. reported in (2004) 6 SCC 754 , Vijayander Kumar v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2014) 3 SCC 389 and C.P Subhash v. Inspector of Police, Chennai reported in 2013 AIR SC 4014. Since no other submissions have been made by learned Advocate for the respondent, these are the decisions which are cited, and are noted laying down the proposition of law in the backdrop of the facts of the particular case. And considering the situation on hand, it appears to this Court that the background of this fact demands the exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of the petitioners. 25. The background of this case has also allowed the Court to consider yet another decision in the case of Kishan Singh (Dead) through Lrs v. Gurpal Singh reported in (2010) 8 SCC 775 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph 18 has considered the conduct of the complainant and also considered the intention behind launching prosecution and in Paragraphs 18 and 22 held as under:- “18. Thus, in view of the above, the law on the issue stands crystallised to the effect that the findings of fact recorded by the civil court do not have any bearing so far as the criminal case is concerned and vice versa. Standard of proof is different in civil and criminal cases. In civil case it is preponderance of probabilities while in criminal cases it is proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is neither any statutory nor any legal principle that findings recorded by the court either in civil or criminal proceedings shall be binding between the same parties while dealing with the same subject-matter and both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein. However, there may be cases where the provisions of Section 41 to 43 of the Evidence Act, 1872, dealing with the relevance of previous judgments in subsequent cases may be taken into consideration. 22. In cases when there is a delay in lodging an FIR, the court has to look for a plausible explanation for such delay. However, there may be cases where the provisions of Section 41 to 43 of the Evidence Act, 1872, dealing with the relevance of previous judgments in subsequent cases may be taken into consideration. 22. In cases when there is a delay in lodging an FIR, the court has to look for a plausible explanation for such delay. In 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 reasons 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. 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.” 26. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid consideration and the circumstances prevailing on record and the conduct of the complainant emerging from the record, has led the Court to believe that the present complaint is aimed at abuse of process of law and not to secure the ends of justice and therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. Hence, accordingly the complaint being C.R No. I-106/2013 is hereby quashed and set aside and the petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute. CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 15899 of 2016 27. In view of order passed in main Criminal Misc. Application No. 9849 of 2013, present application does not survive and disposed of accordingly.