Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 31 (GUJ)

RAMESHBHAI RASIKLAL DESAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2018-01-09

B.N.KARIA

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. The present Application has been filed by applicant/accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity “CrPC”) praying to quash and set aside the complaint, being C.R. No. I- 55 of 2011 registered with Manjalpur Police Station, Vadodara for an offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the applicant is the Chairman and Managing Director of Tensile Steel Limited. The Government of Gujarat carried out procedure for acquisition of land by issuing notification and acquired land as per Notification of the year 1961 and given possession of the land, admeasuring about 98.901 sqr. meter of Survey no. 428/1 T.P. Scheme No. 19, Final Plot No. 150 to the concerned person of the Company. As per terms of allotment, on the occasion of selling the land in question, it shall be transferred after getting permission of the Government under Section 44(A) of the Land Acquisition Act and 50% of the proposed amount should be paid by the Unit. Even if, without getting any kind of permission of the Government, the applicant sold the land in question by a registered sale deed and by doing so, the applicant would be construed to have disobeyed the order of Government and then by committed an economic offence of cheating the Government. As per letter No. 356 of 2011 of the Sub Registrar, Vadodara dated 23.02.2011, as per jantri of the land in question, the approximate price comes to Rs. 1,00,80,000/- and while looking to the details mentioned at Sr. No. 2 in the statement of property regarding the land in question, the procedure to sale the land by way of registered sale deed was started on 10.02.2006 and thereby, the impugned complaint has been lodged. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jal Soli Unwala for Mr. Bomi H. Sethna, learned advocate for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. KL Pandya for the respondent no.1 State. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Jal Soli Unwala for Mr. Bomi H. Sethna, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant is the Chairman and Managing Director of Tensile Steel Limited. That, after carrying out procedure to acquire the land for the said company i.e., land admeasuring about 98.901 sqr. meter of Survey no. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Jal Soli Unwala for Mr. Bomi H. Sethna, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant is the Chairman and Managing Director of Tensile Steel Limited. That, after carrying out procedure to acquire the land for the said company i.e., land admeasuring about 98.901 sqr. meter of Survey no. 428/1 T.P. Scheme No. 19, Final Plot No. 150 was handed over to the concerned person of the Company. That, initially, the Company was making profit and was delivering good results, and therefore, the Company started expanding its business, but because of reaction and having heavy compaction, the Company became weak in the production and it was declared as a “Sick unit” in the year 1980 and hence, the present applicant invested in the said Company and he became Chairman and Managing Director in the year 1983. That, previous management of the Company availed loan from various banks and also from financial institutions, from the State Government and Central Government and all the original documents pertaining to the said land, properties and installed machineries etc are in the custody of the said bank and Institutions. That, as the Company was making losses, it was registered as “Sick Industry” before the BIFR and the Board framed a scheme for revival of the Company and same was sanctioned on 12.12.1996 in case No. 25/87, wherein, at page No. 14 Para 8F (vii), it is specially mentioned that the State Government to grant necessary permission for sale/disposal of the land and not to charge any amount except those payable for change of user and usual municipal taxes and charges for development and to ultimate dispose off the property. In spite of that the Government of Gujarat has not given permission or obeyed the order, which was passed by BIFR and AAIFR and therefore, Tensile Steel Limited preferred Special Civil Application No. 3105 of 1998 before this Court, wherein an order was passed in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the main part of para 8F(vii) confers specific and effective relief to be granted by the State Government to the company. That, the applicant had to raise funds as per the direction of the sanction scheme and more so, some of the land, which is in residential zone of TP Scheme of Vadodara were disposed off and the amount received was utilized as per the Scheme and necessity. That, the applicant had to raise funds as per the direction of the sanction scheme and more so, some of the land, which is in residential zone of TP Scheme of Vadodara were disposed off and the amount received was utilized as per the Scheme and necessity. That, the applicant was approached by Jitendra Desai and having trust on him, the applicant executed power of attorney for Final plot No. 47 and 131 to develop the same. Instead of that, he misused the power of attorney, which was given to him by selling the land and hence, by issuing registered notice and public notice, power of attorney was cancelled. That, Mr. Apoorva Dinesh Patel and Mr. Mahendra Shah, Land Brokers had tried to impress upon the applicant and had created confidence in him. That, power of attorney in favour of Mr. Apporva Patel for small piece of land for Sub Plot No.3 of Plot No.47, which is admeasuring about 1516 sqr. feet was prepared by Apporva Patel and the applicant was asked to visit at the office of Registrar for registration of power of attorney. That, by hatching conspiracy and forging a power of attorney, more particularly, by replacing page no.2 of the said power of attorney of the accused persons (1) Apoorva Patel and (2) Bhavesh N. Amin, by entering into an agreement to sell with a view to cheating the complainant, changed the power of attorney. On request of the complainant, handwriting expert gave an opinion that page no.2 of the power of attorney has been replaced. As against that, the accused persons sought opinion of the hand writing expert and their handwriting expert also gave opinion stating that the opinion given earlier is baseless on materials aspects. That, thereafter, the applicant had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1294 of 2009 in the court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara and while deciding Application Ex. 5, learned Judge directed not to implement the power of attorney dated 20.04.2009 and agreement to sell dated 18.06.2009, nor any use to be made nor to act in any manner against the interest of the applicant. 5, learned Judge directed not to implement the power of attorney dated 20.04.2009 and agreement to sell dated 18.06.2009, nor any use to be made nor to act in any manner against the interest of the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant filed a complaint before Raopura Police Station, Vadodara on 14.12.2009 through Police Commissioner but same was not registered and thereby, the applicant was compelled to prefer an application under Sections 154, 155, 156(3) before the JMFC Court at Vadodara, wherein the Court was pleased to pass an order to register a complaint against Apoorva Dinesh Patel and Bhavesh Nareshchandra Amin and hence, such complaint was registered vide CR No. 53 of 2010 on 29.03.2010 before Raopura Police Station. It is further submitted by learned advocate Mr. Unwala for the petitioner that no notice was issued against the present petitioner by the respondent no.2 before filing the impugned complaint. That, material facts are suppressed by the respondent no.2 in his complaint, as the State Government was party in the previous complaint and before this Court in Special Civil Application No. 3105/1998. That, civil suit is pending against the power of attorney, who has committed forgery. That, the dispute is purely civil in nature and it is given criminal colour by the respondent no.2. That, the first sale deed was executed in the year 2006 and last was executed on 31st January 2009. However, after a long delay, the impugned complaint was filed in the year 2011, without giving any explanation of delay. That, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would an abuse of process of law. That, while sanctioning the Scheme, permission to sale, mortgage or assign the land in dispute was granted by BIFR. If the complaint would be continued against the petitioner, the entire Scheme of BIFR would be frustrated. That, Unit under the ownership of the petitioner is an Industrial unit. That, High Court has also observed the possession directing the State Government to release the land, permitting the petitioner to sale, transfer, mortgage etc., Learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment delivered in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2948 of 2011 and requested to quash and set aside the proceedings registered the FIR, being C.R. No. I-55 of 2011 dated 4th April 2011 along with the charge sheet filed by Manjalpur Police Station, Vadodara for an offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. Application No. 2948 of 2011 and requested to quash and set aside the proceedings registered the FIR, being C.R. No. I-55 of 2011 dated 4th April 2011 along with the charge sheet filed by Manjalpur Police Station, Vadodara for an offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K.L. Pandya for the respondent no.1 strongly opposed the submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioner to contend that permission, as argued by the petitioner was granted to him under section 20(A)(2) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Abolition) Act 1976. That, order passed itself is very clear that permission was granted under the said Act. There was no submission made by the petitioner or by any of the parties in the previous proceedings regarding grant of permission under Section 44(A) of the Land Acquisition Act. That, the petitioner has changed his version, as if the permission was granted by the authority concerned under Section 44(A) of the Land Acquisition Act. During the course of his arguments, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced some of the documents pertaining to permission sought for by the petitioner under Section 44(A) of the Land Acquisition Act requesting the concerned authority, reply given to the petitioner by the Government authority seeking necessary documents, objections raised by Apoorva Dineshbhai Patel, who is accused in the complaint lodged by the petitioner, objections raised by United Employees Union for granting permission to the petitioner, as sought for etc., and submitted that the petitioner was aware from the beginning that such a permission under Section 44(A) of the Land Acquisition was required by him before transferring the land in dispute. That, all these facts, requesting the Government authorities for obtaining permission; as required, was suppressed by him before this Court. That, the complaint was lodged on 4th April 2011 as papers demanded were not supplied by the petitioner. Hence, on 15th October 2010, the department decided to lodge a complaint against the present petitioner. That, the permission; as sought for by the petitioner was not to be granted. The petitioner was accordingly required to pay 50% amount of the land before filing the first petition i.e., Special Civil Application No. 3105/1998. That, this Court has not granted any permission under Section 44(A) of the Land Acquisition Act. There is huge loss of Rs. That, the permission; as sought for by the petitioner was not to be granted. The petitioner was accordingly required to pay 50% amount of the land before filing the first petition i.e., Special Civil Application No. 3105/1998. That, this Court has not granted any permission under Section 44(A) of the Land Acquisition Act. There is huge loss of Rs. 1,08,00,000/- to the Government, which amount was required to be paid by the petitioner. That, a false story has been created by the petitioner with a view to avoid paying of huge amount. That, investigation cannot be hampered in such background of alleged serious offence, as the complaint is at initial stage, and therefore, investigation should not be intercepted in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Learned APP has submitted that the petitioner has remedy available at an appropriate stage; if aggrieved after investigation. Therefore, since the remedy at an appropriate stage is available to the petitioner, this is not the stage where this Court may hamper the progress of investigation, and therefore, ultimately it was requested by him not to interfere with the present proceedings and dismiss the petition. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondent-State and having considered the record of the case, it appears that the respondent no.2 has filed one complaint against the petitioner under Section 406 and 420 IPC, which was registered by Mamlatdar, Vadodara City on 4th April 2011. As per allegations made in the said complaint, the present petitioner was Chairman and Managing Director of Tensile Steel Limited was granted impugned land of Survey no. 428/1 T.P. Scheme No. 19, Final Plot No. 150 admeasuring 98901 sqr. meters by acquiring land under the Land Acquisition Act. As per Government Rules, at the time of disposal of disputed land, the petitioner was obliged to take necessary permission of the Government, or as envisaged under Section 44(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is further alleged in the complaint that 50% of the total amount was required to be paid by the petitioner to the Government. However, the present petitioner being Chairman and Managing Director of the said Company, sold the disputed land by a registered sale deed without taking any permission from the Government. According to the letter issued by Sub Registrar, being No. 356/2011 dated 23/02/2011 approximately jantri value of the disputed land is about Rs. However, the present petitioner being Chairman and Managing Director of the said Company, sold the disputed land by a registered sale deed without taking any permission from the Government. According to the letter issued by Sub Registrar, being No. 356/2011 dated 23/02/2011 approximately jantri value of the disputed land is about Rs. 2,01,60,000/- ( Rupees Two Crores One lac Sixty thousand only), so 50% of it comes to Rs. 1,00,80,000 (One Crore Eighty Thousand). That, the land was started to have been sold by the petitioner from 10th February 2006; as per the revenue record. 7. From the documents produced on record by the petitioner, it appears that unit of the petitioner was a ‘sick industry’ as declared by BIFR and the Board framed the Scheme for revival of the Company and same was sanctioned on 12.12.1996 by BIFR in case No. 25/1987, wherein at page No. 14 Para 8F(Vii) it is clearly mentioned that “The State Government of Gujarat to grant necessary permission for sale/disposal of lands and not to charge any amount except those payable for change or users and usual municipal taxes and charges for development and ultimate disposal of the property. Further, permission was granted to the petitioner’s unit to mortgage/re-mortgage/develop/re-develop/lease/ assign its land/properties either by itself or through its agent as per the existing guidelines/policy applicable to sick industrial unit”. According to the petitioner, though a specific consent was granted by BIFR, Government of Gujarat did not consider the same and not granted any permission, and therefore, the petitioner’s Unit preferred Special Civil Application No. 3105/1998 before this Court, wherein, the following order was passed on 8th May 1998: “11. It is true that words "as per existing guidelines/policy applicable to the sick industrial units" are to be found in the aforesaid sub-clause but the main part of sub-clause specifically provides that the State Government shall "grant necessary permission for sale/disposal of the land and not to charge any amount as those payable for charge of users and usual Municipal Taxes and charges for development and ultimate disposal of the property, and further, shall permit the Company to mortgage / remortgage develop/redevelop/lease/assign its lands/ properties either by itself or through its agents. Hence, the main part of Para 8F(vii) confers specific and effective relief to be granted by the State Government to the Company.” 8. As per the case of petitioner, one Mr. Hence, the main part of Para 8F(vii) confers specific and effective relief to be granted by the State Government to the Company.” 8. As per the case of petitioner, one Mr. Jitendra Desai approached the petitioner and having trust upon him, one power of attorney for Final Plot Nos.47 and 131 to develop the said land was executed by him on 15th July 1999. The said person, instead of developing the land, misused the power of attorney and sold the said land, and therefore, the petitioner was compelled to cancel the said power of attorney, which was given to the said Mr. Jitendra Desai by issuing a public notice and by registered notice. It appears from the averments made by the petitioner in his Additional Affidavit that Survey No. 482 of plot no. 47 was divided into four plots by the said person i.e., Mr. Jitendra Desai and by executing different sale deed, plot No. 47 was sold by him. 9. The said Jitendra Desai sold sub plot No.3 to his wife Nirupamaben J. Desai for a consideration of Rs. 4,25,000/- by a Sale Deed dated 2nd September 2008. The above sale deed was challenged by the petitioner by filing Special Civil Suit No. 647/2008 for cancellation of the sale deed, which is pending before Civil Court at Vadodara. (ii) The said Jitendra Desai sold sub plot No. 2/B to one Hemlataben Rajnikant Patel for a sale consideration of Rs. 4,10,000/- by a sale deed dated 15th November 2007. The said sale deed was challenged by the petitioner by filing Civil Suit No. 650 of 2008 before Civil Court at Vadodara with a prayer to cancel the same. (iii) The said person Mr. Jitendra Desai on 10th February 2006, sold another piece of land bearing sub-plot No. 1 to Jitendra Manilal Patel for a Sale consideration of Rs. 4,10,000/-. When the petitioner came to know about the same, he challenged the said sale deed by filing Special Civil Suit No. 649 of 2008. Regarding sub plot, the said Jitendra Desai sold said sub-plot to Smt. Sunita S. Prathan by a sale deed dated 3rd May 2001. The amount of sale consideration to the tune of Rs. 2,07,000/- was accepted by the petitioner and deposited in the Provident Fund Account of the Company. Thus, out of land bearing Survey No. 538, plot no. Regarding sub plot, the said Jitendra Desai sold said sub-plot to Smt. Sunita S. Prathan by a sale deed dated 3rd May 2001. The amount of sale consideration to the tune of Rs. 2,07,000/- was accepted by the petitioner and deposited in the Provident Fund Account of the Company. Thus, out of land bearing Survey No. 538, plot no. 131 was divided into 11 sub plots by the said Mr. Jitendra Desai, and out of these Eleven sub plots, six sub plots were mischievously sold by the said person, according to the petitioner, as he being a power of attorney regarding the plot no. 131. (i) According to the petitioner, the said Mr. Jitendra Desai sold sub plot no. 7 to Jashubhai Ambalal Patel for a sale consideration of Rs. 4,30,000/- by a sale deed dated 18th April 2006. The said sale deed was challenged by the petitioner by filing Special Civil Suit No. 648 of 2008, which is pending before Civil Court at Vadodara. (ii) Sub plot No.8 was sold by the said person to one Tanujaben Manharbhai Patel for a sale consideration of Rs. 4,05,000/- by a sale deed dated 28th March 2005, which has been challenged by filing Special Civil Suit No. 645 of 2008. (iii) Another sub plot No. 9 was sold by the said person Mr. Jitendra Desai to one Premilaben Mahendrabhai Patel for a sale consideration of Rs. 4,05,000/- by executing a sale deed dated 28th March 2008, which has been challenged by filing Special Civil Suit No. 651 of 2008. (iv) Another sub plot No. 10 was sold by the said person Mr. Jitendra Desai to Shri Ashokbhuai Purshottambhai Panchal for a sale consideration of Rs. 4,05,000/- by a sale deed dated 28th April 2008, which has been challenged by filing Special Civil Suit No. 644 of 2008, though power of attorney was cancelled by the petitioner which was in favour of Jitendra Desai. (v) Sub plot No. 11 was sold by the said person to one Subhash Chandra Motibhai Patel for a sale consideration of Rs. 4,05,000/- by executing a sale deed dated 28th March 2008, which is challenged by the petitioner by filing Special Civil Suit No. 646 of 2008. 10. According to the petitioner, all these sale-deeds have been executed by the said Mr. 4,05,000/- by executing a sale deed dated 28th March 2008, which is challenged by the petitioner by filing Special Civil Suit No. 646 of 2008. 10. According to the petitioner, all these sale-deeds have been executed by the said Mr. Jitendra Desai without knowledge of the petitioner or without sharing any amount received by him towards the said land. That, the said person Mr. Jitendra Desai had misappropriated all the funds, which came to be received by him by way of sale deeds and no amount was deposited by him in the Company i.e., Tensile Steel Limited Company. It appears that sub plot no.1 of Final Plot No. 131 admeasuring 1980 sqr. feet was disposed of by a registered sale deed executed on 21st January 2009 for consideration of Rs. 7,92,000/- by the present petitioner himself. Another sub plot No.2 of Final Plot No. 131, admeasuring 1350 sqr. feet, was sold by a registered sale deed executed on 21st January 1999 by the petitioner, who received Rs. 5,40,000/-. Likewise, Sub-plot No. 3 of Final Plot No. 131, admeasuring 1350 sqr. feet, was sold by the petitioner by a sale deed dated 21.01.2009 and received a sum of Rs. 5,40,000/-. So far as, sub plot No. 4 of Final Plot No. 131, admeasuring 1350 sqr. feet, the petitioner sold the same by a sale deed dated 21.01.2009 and received a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/-. And whereas, Sub-plot Nos. 5 and 6 of Final Plot No. 131, admeasuring 1950 sqr. feet, the sale deed was executed by the petitioner on 21.01.2009 for a sale consideration of Rs. 14,00,000/-, which was received by him and according to him, the said amount was deposited in the Provident Fund Account of the Company. 11. A power of attorney was executed in favour of Jitendra Desai for developing the land (zerox copy thereof is produced on record) authorizing him to sale cum develop the land area by filing affidavit as well as to appear before the appropriate Sub Registrar, or remain present or register sale deed executed by him and get proper registration of the same under the Registration Act, being in force or other Act from time to time. Notice issued to said power of attorney in favour of Shri Jitendra Desai dated 17th July 2008 is produced on record. Notice issued to said power of attorney in favour of Shri Jitendra Desai dated 17th July 2008 is produced on record. The petitioner has also filed criminal complaint to Raopura Police Station, Vadodara on 14th December 2009. But, according to him, it was not registered against the accused persons i.e., Apporva D. Patel and Bhavesh Nareshchandra Amin, as they were influential persons at the relevant point of time, and thereafter, he was compelled to prefer an application under Sections 154, 155, 156(3) before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (2nd Court) Vadodara, wherein, learned Judge was pleased to issue notice and register the complaint against the said two persons. It also appears from the record produced by the petitioner that one Bhavesh Nareshchandra Amin preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 3372 of 2010 under section 482 CrPC for quashment of the said proceedings, which was initiated against them in FIR, being CR No. I-53 of 2010. Hence, this Court vide order dated 6th April 2010, was pleased to grant ad-interim relief against the said accused persons. It is the averments of the petitioner that with a view to cheating the complainant, page no.2 of the said power of attorney has been changed by the accused persons i.e., Apporva D. Patel and Bhavesh Nareshchandra Amin by entering into an agreement to sell. That, the previous power of attorney executed by the petitioner was in connection with only one property with regard to Revenue survey no. 582, admeasuring 925.29 sqr. meter, T.P. Scheme No. 19 of Final Plot No. 47, situated in Shreeji Park; Sub Plot No.3 admeasuring 140.84 sqr. meter i.e., 1516 sqr.feet, there was no mention about the land, bearing revenue survey No. 428/1, admeasuring 99149 sqr. meter, TP Scheme No. 19, Final Plot No. 150, admeasuring 98901 sqr. meter (10,64,174.76 sqr. fts) situated in commercial zone i.e., non agricultural land. According to the petitioner, serious attempt has been made by replacing page no.2 to grab the land. Therefore, the petitioner had sent all the documents for handwriting expert’s opinion. As per the opinion received, page no.2 of the power of attorney was replaced. The accused persons have also sought opinion from hand writing expert Shri Kapilkumar without any authenticity of the power of attorney. The document examiner Meghna Sahu also given her opinion stating that opinion given by Mr. Kapilkumar was baseless on the material aspects. As per the opinion received, page no.2 of the power of attorney was replaced. The accused persons have also sought opinion from hand writing expert Shri Kapilkumar without any authenticity of the power of attorney. The document examiner Meghna Sahu also given her opinion stating that opinion given by Mr. Kapilkumar was baseless on the material aspects. As per statement of the petitioner, it appears that on 16.12.1992, by its letter, the Chairman, Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi in respect of Tensile Steel Limited, Vadodara stating that in the event of BIFR approving rehabilitation package of Tensile Steel Limited, the State Government shall release the land of the Unit under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, as per its policy so as to enable the Company to pay dues of the Central and State Government and release payments to the pressing creditors, banks, financial institutes etc., as per the approval of Board of Industrial Finance and Reconstruction. It transpires that the State Government was directed to release the land under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, as per its Policy, for the purpose shown in the policy. The BIFR has sanctioned the Scheme under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985 in favour of the petitioner’s unit for determination of the measures to be adopted in respect of the said Company. In column No. F, relating to State Government, it provides at Page No. 485, Col. No. (vii) as under: “(vii) To grant necessary permission for sale/disposal of lands and not to charge any amounts except those payable for change of users and usual Municipal Taxes and charges for development and ultimate disposal of the property. Further, to permit the company to mortgage/re-mortgage/ develop/redevelop/lease/assign its land/properties either by itself or through its agent as per the existing guidelines/policy applicable to sick industrial units.” 12. This scheme was sanctioned vide case No. 25/1987 on 12th December 1996, thereafter in Special Civil Application No. 3105 of 1998, this court was pleased to pass the following order: “For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed. This scheme was sanctioned vide case No. 25/1987 on 12th December 1996, thereafter in Special Civil Application No. 3105 of 1998, this court was pleased to pass the following order: “For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed. It is directed that, subject to the right of the State Government to challenge the Order dated 23rd April, 1998 of the Appellate Authority for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction in Appeal No. 24/98, the State Government shall comply with the scheme sanctioned by the BIFR on 12th December,1996 as interpreted and explained by the Appellate Authority in its Order dated 23rd April, 1998, passed in Appeal No. 24/98, within two months from today, unless in the meantime the aforesaid Order of the AAIFR in Appeal No. 24/98 is stayed by any appropriate Court of Law” 13. From the documents produced on record, it appears that the petitioner-Unit has made representation to the State Government for grant of permission for sale/development of the land of the petitioner’s Unit, so as to generate funds for meeting the costs. Such representation was not produced by the petitioner, while filing this petition. However, on production of this document produced by learned APP, it appears that a request was made by the petitioner to the Government to grant permission under Section 44(A) of the Land Acquisition Act and because the said permission has not been granted, the Bankers viz., Bank of India and Punjab & Sind Bank and GIIC were pursuing BIFR for canceling the said Scheme sanctioned on 12th December 1996. 14. It appears that BIFR issued certain consequential directions to the Agency, in view of the failure of the scheme. Thereafter, the petitioner’s Company took up the matter in appeal before the Appellate Authority (AAIFR), which admitted and stayed the order of BIFR, till disposal of the Appeal and on 23rd April 1990, the appellate authority held as under: “The permission granted by GOG under their earlier letter dated 16.12.1992 continues to be legally valid. Moreover, it is noticed that when the scheme was sanctioned by BIFR, representative of GIIC/GOG was present and no objection was raised on behalf of GOG. Therefore, it is open to TCL to sell/dispose of the land in accordance with para 8F of the sanctioned scheme read with GOG’s earlier letter dated 16.12.1992.” 15. Moreover, it is noticed that when the scheme was sanctioned by BIFR, representative of GIIC/GOG was present and no objection was raised on behalf of GOG. Therefore, it is open to TCL to sell/dispose of the land in accordance with para 8F of the sanctioned scheme read with GOG’s earlier letter dated 16.12.1992.” 15. The said Special Civil Application No. 3105/2008 was disposed of directing the State Government to comply with Para 8(F)(vii) of the Scheme sanctioned by the BIFR, as interpreted and explained by AAIFR vide order dated 23rd April 1998 in Appeal No. 24/1998 with certain observations. It appears that on 17th October 1990, the State Government through its Revenue Department was pleased to permit the petitioner’s company/unit to sale/transfer/mortgage/re-mortgage, as per the order passed by this High Court in Special Civil Application No. 3105/1998 on 08.05.1998 with certain conditions. The condition no.6 stipulates that before transferring the land or using the land, the permission as required under any law/Rules for the time being was to be obtained by the petitioner’s Company. The impugned complaint was filed by the respondent no.2 alleging that permission under Section 44(A) of the Land Acquisition Act was not received by the petitioner’s Company before transferring the land in dispute, as stated in the complaint. This Court would like refer Section 44(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, which is as under: “Section 44(A): Restriction on transfer, etc: No Company for which any land is acquired under this Part shall be entitled to transfer the said land or any part thereof by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise except with the previous sanction of the appropriate Government.” 16. It transpires from this provision and the averments made by the petitioner that the impugned land was acquired for the petitioner’s Company under the Land Acquisition Act. As per the letter dated 16th December 1992 addressed to the Chairman, Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction in respect of the petitioner’s Company, State Government was directed to release the land of the unit/petitioner’s Company under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, as per the policy of the Government. Thereafter, as per the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 3150/1998, it was indisputedly in connection with the land granting permission under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. Thereafter, as per the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 3150/1998, it was indisputedly in connection with the land granting permission under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. The State Government passed an order dated 17th October 1990, granting sanction in favour of the petitioner by imposing certain conditions; including to get necessary permission under any other law/rules before transferring the land for the purpose for which it was required. There is nothing wrong if said condition is imposed by the Government in its order dated 17.10.1990. The entire litigation or dispute and permission granted was under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. Now, another permission under Section 44(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, as referred to earlier, appears to be mandatory on the part of the petitioner’s company and before previous sanction granted by the appropriate Government, no Company is permitted to transfer the said land or any part thereof, by sale, mortgage, lease or otherwise, which was acquired under this Act. 17. From the above discussion, it appears that indisputedly, permission under Section 44(A) of the Land Acquisition Act was never received by the petitioner’s Company. Not only this, it was in knowledge of the petitioner and he was also well aware that previous permission was required to be obtained by him before transferring or selling the property. 18. In a letter addressed to the Collector, Vadodara dated 24.01.2011, so also in the proceedings before AAIFR, Delhi, it is admittedly stated by the petitioner that the land was acquired, no transfer would be possible. In para 2, at page no. 181 of the said letter, it is stated that in Civil Suit No. 370 of 2010 filed by Mr. Bhavesh Amin of Shrim Construction Private Limited before the Civil Court at Vadodara, it is declared in Ex. 24 that Survey no. 428/1, Final Plot No. 150, admeasuring 10,64,174.76 sq. feet, the land was acquired by the Government in favour of the petitioner. Before transferring the land, permission under Section 44(A) of the Land Acquisition Act from the State Government would be required and the petitioner was fully aware of such provision. 24 that Survey no. 428/1, Final Plot No. 150, admeasuring 10,64,174.76 sq. feet, the land was acquired by the Government in favour of the petitioner. Before transferring the land, permission under Section 44(A) of the Land Acquisition Act from the State Government would be required and the petitioner was fully aware of such provision. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner was also aware of the permission granted by letter dated 16.12.1992, and the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 3105 of 1998 was in connection with only Urban Land Ceiling Act and not under Section 44(A) of the Land Acquisition Act. Now, it appears that petitioner has tried to convert it under sanction under Section 44(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, though he was fully aware of the fact that no such permission was granted to him in the year 2011 also. 19. 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 the 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 court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the statute. 20. 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 pressurize the accused. On analysis of the aforementioned discussion, this Court is 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 Court under Section 482 CrPC, though are wide have 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. 21. Under the circumstances, this Court does not deem it to be a fit case to exercise powers vested under Section 482 CrPC in favour of the petitioner herein. Therefore, the present writ petition fails and the same stands dismissed. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. Rule discharged without any separate order as to the costs. FURTHER ORDER: 22. Learned advocate Mr. Therefore, the present writ petition fails and the same stands dismissed. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. Rule discharged without any separate order as to the costs. FURTHER ORDER: 22. Learned advocate Mr. Shrenik R. Jasani for Mr. Bomi H. Sethna, learned advocate for the petitioner requested to suspend operation of this order, so as to enable the petitioner to challenge the same before the higher forum/Appellate Court. 23. Considering the fact that interim relief was granted by this Court vide Order dated 21.02.2012 and continued all throughout the proceeding, the prayer made by the petitioner is hereby accepted. Hence, operation of this order dated 9th January 2018 shall be suspended till 15th February 2018 and thereby interim relief granted earlier vide Order dated 21.02.2012 shall continue till then i.e., 15th February 2018.