Gujarat High Court
Bhabhlubhai Nagbhai Varu vs State Of Gujarat on 20 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET
ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 6114 of 2021
With
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2025
In R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 6114 of 2021
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3135 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
================================================
BHABHLUBHAI NAGBHAI VARU & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
CHINTAN K GANDHI(8600) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. SANDIP A. KAPADIYA(17911) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 20/07/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
PRELUDE:
1. As both these applications arise out of the same FIR, they are
Page 1 of 22
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 22:40:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
undefined
are being decided by this common judgment and order.
2. By these applications, the applicants are before this Court
praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR being
C.R. No. 11193027200953 of 2020, registered on 18.08.2020 with
Khambha Police Station, District Amreli, for the offences
punishable under Sections 384, 386, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as well as Section 40, 42(A) and
42(D)of the Gujarat Money Lending Act.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. The case, as narrated in the FIR, is to the effect that:
2.1 Original Complainant namely Jentibhai Raghavbhai
Sodvadiya has inherited agricultural land from his ancestors. One
parcel of land is recorded under Revenue Account No. 33, Survey
No. 30/1, measuring 2 Hectare, 83 Are, and 28 Square Metre,
situated within the revenue limits of Mota Sakdiya village.
Another parcel of agricultural land is recorded under Revenue
Account No. 722, Survey No. 141, measuring 1 Hectare, 14 Are,
and 33 Square Metre, situated within the revenue limits of Dedan
village.
2.2 Approximately two years ago, his son Prayagbhai intended
to go abroad, and he also required funds for agricultural
operations. Since he needed approximately Rs.6,00,000/-, he
Page 2 of 22
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 22:40:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
undefined
approached his friend, Isubkhan Hasan Khan Pathan, a resident of
Dedan, and discussed his financial requirement with him.
Thereupon, his friend Isubkhan informed him that there was a
finance office at Dedan operated by Pratapbhai Nagbhai Varu,
who used to lend money. On a suggestion being made by
Isubkhan, they both visited the office of Pratapbhai Nagbhai Varu,
a resident of Nageshri, located at Dedan. It is stated in the FIR that
during their meeting, Pratapbhai informed that his brother,
Bhabhlubhai Nagbhai Varu, a resident of Gokulnagar, Jafrabad
Road, Rajula, who was a Teacher, would provide with a loan on
interest, pursuant to which he personally went to Rajula to meet
Bhabhlubhai Nagbhai Varu.
2.3 It is further stated in the FIR that the complainant explained
his financial requirement to Bhabhlubhai, whereupon, he asked
him to execute an Agreement to Sell (Banakhat) without
possession in respect of his agricultural land towards Security for
the loan, and accordingly, he would lend him the money on
interest, to which, complainant agreed.
2.4 Thereafter, Bhabhlubhai informed him that he would call
him the following day and instructed him to come to the
Mamlatdar Office at Khambha, where they would execute the
Agreement to Sell (Banakhat). As the complainant was in urgent
need of money, he went to Khambha on 02.01.2018. On that day,
Agreement to Sell (Banakhat) in respect of his agricultural land
Page 3 of 22
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 22:40:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
undefined
bearing Survey No. 30/1 came to be executed. After the execution
of the Banakhat, Bhabhlubhai handed over a Cheque No. 003092
for Rs.4,50,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank, Rajula Branch. Since he
actually required a loan of Rs.5,00,000/-, Bhabhlubhai deducted
Rs.50,000 in advance towards two months’ interest at the rate of
5%, and consequently issued him a cheque for only Rs.4,50,000.
Thereafter, as the complainant required additional funds, he once
again approached Bhabhlubhai seeking another loan. At that time,
Bhabhlubhai told him that if he required a further loan of
Rs.1,50,000/-, he should execute another Agreement to Sell
(Banakhat), in the same manner as before, in respect of his
agricultural land situated within the revenue limits of Dedan
village. Accordingly, on 06.04.2018, the complainant executed an
Agreement to Sell (Banakhat) in favour of Bhabhlubhai for the
agricultural land bearing Survey No. 141, situated within the
revenue limits of Dedan village. Upon execution of the said
Banakhat, Bhabhlubhai paid him Rs.50,000/-.
2.5 Approximately eight months later, the complainant received
a telephone call from Bhabhlubhai Nagbhai Varu informing that
he owed him Rs.5,50,000/- and demanded interest at the rate of
10% on the said amount, to which, the complainant replied that
the amount of interest he was demanding was excessive and that
he was not in a position to pay such a high rate of interest. Upon
hearing this, Bhabhlubhai got agitated and started hurling filthy
abuses and threatened to kill him and family if his money is not
Page 4 of 22
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 22:40:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
undefined
repaid. He further warned him that until the money is repaid, he
would not allow him to cultivate or even enter his agricultural
fields.
2.6 Thereafter, the complainant arranged through a commission
agent (broker) to sell the onion crop grown on his land at the
Mahuva Marketing Yard. When Bhabhlubhai came to know about
this, Bhabhlubhai Nagbhai Varu, Pratapbhai Nagbhai Varu, and
Nareshbhai Chauhan, a Teacher at Dhareshwar Primary School, all
three of them rushed to his residence at around 6:30 p.m. and
began abusing and intimidating him. They told him that the sale
bill for his onion crop should be transferred into the name of
Bhabhlubhai, and they compelled him to do so by force. Under the
pressure, the complainant contacted the commission agent and
arranged for the Gate Pass issued by the Mahuva Marketing Yard
as well as the sale invoice (bill) for his onion crop to be issued in
the name of Bhabhlubhai. Thereafter, Bhabhlubhai himself
collected the sale proceeds directly. He does not know the amount
for which the bill was settled.
2.7 Thereafter, three of them told the complainant that if he ever
went to his orchard/farm situated within the revenue limits of
Mota Sakdiya village again, they would kill him. They further
warned him that until he repaid money, he would not be allowed
to enter or cultivate his agricultural land, and that they would
remain in possession of the said land till then. Since that time,
Page 5 of 22
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 22:40:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
undefined
Pratapbhai is in possession of agricultural land situated at Mota
Sakdiya village. It is further alleged that, thereafter, also the
above-mentioned three persons repeatedly contacted him in
person as well as over the telephone, making aggressive demands
for payment of interest and threatening and intimidating the
complainant. On one occasion, Bhabhlubhai met him at Dedan
village and told him that the total amount payable by him,
including interest on the money he had lent, had increased to
Rs.27,50,000/-. He further stated that if he was unable to pay the
said amount, he should execute a registered sale deed of his
agricultural land in his favour. Thereafter, the complainant
returned home and left for Surat. The complainant became
extremely frightened because of the conduct and threats of these
persons, and as a result, complainant kept moving from place to
place to avoid them. Subsequently, complainant’s friend,
Rameshbhai Madhubhai Devani, a resident of Mota Sakdiya, came
to know about the entire incident. He encouraged the complainant
and gave him the courage to approach the authorities. Thus, on the
said fact, the FIR in question has been lodged.
SUBMISSIONS:
3. Heard, learned advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli, for the
applicants in Criminal Misc. Application No. 6114 of 2021 with
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2 of 2025 and learned advocate Mr.
Rohan Majmudar, learned advocate for the applicant in Criminal
Misc. Application No. 3135 of 2021 and learned Additional Public
Page 6 of 22
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 22:40:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
undefined
Prosecutor Mr. Rohan Shah for the respondent – State and learned
advocate Mr. Sandip Kapadiya for the respondent – de facto
complainant.
3.1 The learned advocates for the applicants, at the outset,
submitted that the FIR suffers from an inordinate and unexplained
delay of nearly two years. The original complainant has failed to
furnish any plausible or satisfactory explanation for such an
extraordinary delay, which casts serious doubt on the
genuineness, credibility, and bona fides of the allegations levelled
against the applicants.
3.2 The learned advocates for the applicants further submitted
that the investigation has already been concluded and the Charge-
sheet has been filed before the competent Court.
3.3 The learned advocates for the applicants submitted that
entire controversy emanates from an Agreement to Sell executed
between the applicant and respondent No. 2. The allegations, even
if accepted at their face value, disclose a dispute purely of a civil
nature. The respondent No. 2 has, with an oblique motive to exert
undue pressure and to secure a collateral advantage, sought to
give a criminal colour to a civil transaction. Such misuse of the
criminal process is impermissible in law and amounts to an abuse
of the process of the Court.
Page 7 of 22
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 22:40:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
undefined
3.4 The learned advocates for the applicants further submitted
that a plain reading of the FIR, does not disclose the essential
ingredients constituting the offences punishable under Sections
384 and 386 of the IPC, nor does it make out any offence under the
applicable provisions of the Money Lending Act. The allegations
are vague, omnibus, and devoid of the necessary factual
foundation to attract the aforesaid penal provisions. Consequently,
the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the applicants
would be wholly unjustified and unsustainable in law.
3.5 The learned advocates for the applicants would further
submit that the applicant No. 1 has also filed Regular Civil Suit
No. 44 of 2022 against the de facto complainant before the Court of
learned Principal Civil Judge, Khambha for specific performance
of Agreement to Sell, executed for land bearing Survey No. 30/1 of
Village: Mota Sarakadiya, Taluka: Khambha, District: Amreli,
wherein, vide order dated 03.10.2023 passed below Exh. 5, the
learned Principal Civil Judge, Khambha has partly allowed the
injunction application and restrained the present informant not to
create any charge, encumbrance or deal with land in question in
any manner. So far as applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.
3135 of 2021, it is stated that the applicant therein has nothing to
do with the transaction in question and the allegations, as made in
the FIR, are considered qua him, save and except the bald
allegations that he accompanied the main accused to the home of
the complainant and all the three abused and threatened the
Page 8 of 22
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 22:40:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
undefined
complainant and thereafter, also threatened on phone, no other
allegations are made against him. In the circumstances, he
reiterated that so far as offence punishable under Sections 384 and
386 of the IPC and under the Gujarat Money Lending Act are
concerned, the applicant has nothing to do with and that, the
ingredients of the said offences are not satisfied qua him. Whereas,
offence punishable under Section 506(2) IPC is also not attracted
inasmuch as, there is no intention on the part of this applicant to
cause any alarm to the complainant and that, mere expression of
any word, allegedly spoken by him, would not amount to criminal
intimidation. Further, he stated that the applicant has no
antecedents. In support, the learned advocate has relied upon
decisions of the coordinate Bench in i) Nalinbhai Amirali
Bhanvadiya v. State of Gujarat, 2019(0) AIJEL-HC 242193 and ii)
Pravinbhai Gordhanbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2019 (0)
AIJEL-HC 240972.
3.6 The learned advocates would further submit that the de facto
complainant also filed an application below Exh. 44 under Order 7
Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (CPC) which came
to be dismissed by the learned Principal Judge on 11.06.2024.
3.7 The learned advocates would lastly submit that the present
FIR filed against the applicants is nothing but an abuse of process
of law, to harass the present applicants and thus, argued to allow
the present applications.
Page 9 of 22
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 22:40:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
undefined
4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
respondent – State and learned advocate Mr. Sandip Kapadiya for
the de facto complainant would submit that:
4.1 That since the Charge-sheet has been filed, the applicants
have an alternative efficacious remedy of preferring a discharge
application, since the scope of exercising powers under Section 482
of the CrPC is very narrow. Having made a prima facie case, the
present applications deserve to be dismissed.
4.2 It is further submitted that the contention raised by the
learned advocate for the applicants requires a full-fledged trial and
can be tested only on the basis of the evidence led before the trial.
4.3 The learned advocates for the respondents further submits
that the applicants are the persons having criminal antecedents
involving offences of a similar nature, thereby indicating a
discernible modus operandi. It is further contended that such
antecedents, coupled with the material collected during the course
of investigation, prima facie substantiate the allegations levelled
against the applicants and, therefore, no case is made out for the
exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the
impugned FIR or the consequential criminal proceedings.
FINDINGS:
5. Heard, the learned advocates for the respective parties and
Page 10 of 22
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 22:40:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
undefined
perused the material on record.
5.1 At the outset, it would be apt to refer to a decision in case of
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, wherein, the
Hon’ble Apex Court crystallized seven distinct, illustrative
categories of cases where judicial intervention under Section 482 of
the Code or Article 226 of the Constitution is necessitated to secure
the ends of justice and clip any abuse of the process of Court. The
relevant portion of Paragraph 102 of the said judgment is extracted
below:
“(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report
or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations ins the F.I.R. and other materials, if
any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers under S.156(1) of the
Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of
S.155(2) of the code.
(3) Where, the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not
disclose the commission of any offence and make out the case
against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under S.155(2) of the Code.
(5) Whether, the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are
Page 11 of 22
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 22:40:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
undefined
so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where, there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and/or where
there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved
party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with
an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with
a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
5.2 The applicants have preferred these applications under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC),
seeking the quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) and the
consequential Charge-sheet pending before the competent Court.
The dispute originates from financial transactions where the
original complainant executed two Agreements to Sell (Banakhat)
concerning his ancestral agricultural lands as security for loans
advanced by the applicant. While the Complainant alleges
extortion, criminal intimidation, and forcible dispossession under
the guise of an illegal money-lending operation, the applicants
contend that the matter is a purely civil contractual dispute that
has been deliberately given a criminal colour to bypass binding
civil obligations.
Page 12 of 22
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 22:40:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
undefined
5.3 POINTS OF CONTENTION:
5.3.1 Commercial/Civil Transaction vs. Criminal Offence:
i) Whether the controversy, rooted in executed
Agreements to Sell and financial advances, is purely civil in
nature, rendering criminal prosecution an abuse of the
process of law.
5.3.2 Impact of Pre-existing and Subsisting Civil Court Orders:
ii) Whether the institution of a Regular Civil Suit and the
protection granted by a competent Civil Court alter the
maintainability of the concurrent criminal proceedings.
5.3.3 Sustainment of Penal Ingredients:
iii) Whether the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR and
Charge-sheet fulfil the essential legal ingredients required to
constitute offences under Sections 384 and 386 of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC) and the Money-Lending Act.
5.3.4 Effect of Inordinate and Unexplained Delay:
iv) Whether a two-year delay in registering the FIR,
viewed in juxtaposition with parallel civil developments,
invalidates the bona fides of the criminal prosecution.
Page 13 of 22
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 22:40:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
undefined
6. ANALYSIS AND REASONING:
6.1 To determine whether the criminal proceedings ought to be
quashed, this Court must examine the structural framework of the
dispute against the bedrock principles governing Section 482 of the
CrPC.
a) The Civil Character of the Transaction and Criminal
Cloaking:
6.1.1 The record reveals that the interaction between the parties
strictly initiated as a commercial transaction. The Complainant
sought funds for his son’s foreign travel and agricultural
operations, voluntarily executing an Agreement to Sell (Banakhat)
on 02.01.2018, for Survey No. 30/1, receiving a cheque of
Rs.4,50,000/-. He subsequently executed a second Banakhat on
06.04.2018 for Survey No. 141, receiving an additional Rs.50,000/-.
6.1.2 The Apex Court in Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand
(2013) 11 SCC 673 held that:
” Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends
upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential
ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged
by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may
also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether
a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of
criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available
and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High
Court should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent
abuse of process of court.”
Page 14 of 22
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 22:40:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
undefined
6.1.3 Similarly, in G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. (2000) 2 SCC 636,
the Apex Court observed that “Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code has to be exercised with a great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction
High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. It is to be seen if a
matter, which is essentially of 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……..”.
6.1.4 In the present case, the primary relationship between the
parties is bound by written property agreements and formal
banking transactions. The subsequent allegations of coercion,
when analyzed against the admitted execution of documents
months apart, reveal an attempt to invalidate the legal efficacy of
the Banakhats through criminal recourse. The dispute is
fundamentally a contractual and financial disagreement regarding
the repayment of advanced sums and the enforcement of land
agreements, which belongs strictly to civil jurisprudence.
b) Primacy of Ongoing Civil Adjudication:
6.2 It is an uncontroverted fact that the applicant No. 1 instituted
Regular Civil Suit No. 44 of 2022 before the Principal Civil Judge,
Khambha, seeking specific performance of the Agreement to Sell
for the Mota Sakdiya village land. Crucially, on 03.10.2023, the
Page 15 of 22
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 22:40:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
undefined
competent Civil Court passed an order below Exh. 5, partly
allowing an injunction and restraining the complainant from
creating any third-party charges or dealing with the land.
Furthermore, the complainant’s application to reject the plaint
under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC was formally dismissed by
the Civil Court on 11.06.2024.
6.2.1 The continuation of criminal proceedings on the exact same
subject matter for which a competent Civil Court is actively
adjudicating the validity, possession, and specific performance of
the Banakhat, allowing a parallel criminal prosecution to evaluate
the same transactional facts creates an impermissible overlap. The
criminal process cannot be utilized to frustrate an interim
injunction issued by a civil Court of competent jurisdiction.
c) Absence of Essential Penal Ingredients:
6.3 A plain reading of the FIR and Charge-sheet fails to establish
the necessary elements of extortion under Sections 384 and 386 of
the IPC. The statutory definition of extortion requires that the
accused must dishonestly induce a person under fear of injury to
deliver property. Here, the delivery of money via cheque and the
execution of the Banakhats were completed voluntarily in 2018.
The subsequent escalation and verbal altercations described in the
FIR relate to the recovery of the advanced loan and accrued
interest. While the high rate of interest demanded may violate the
Page 16 of 22
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 22:40:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
undefined
regulatory provisions of money-lending laws it does not
automatically transmute a financial default or aggressive recovery
into the criminal offence of extortion.
6.3.1 Section 386 of the IPC relates to extortion by putting a person
in fear of death or grievous hurt. Section 386 of the IPC runs as
follows:–
“Section 386. Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or
grievous hurt. –Whoever commits extortion by putting any
person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any
other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine.”
6.3.2 “Extortion” has been defined in Section 383 of the IPC as
follows:
“Section 383. Extortion.–Whoever intentionally puts any person
in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby
dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any
person any property or valuable security or anything signed or
sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits
extortion.
Illustrations:
(a) A threatens to publish a defamatory libel concerning Z unless Z
gives him money. He thus induces Z to give him money. A has
committed extortion.
(b) A threatens Z that he will keep Z’s child in wrongful
confinement, unless Z will sign and deliver to A a promissory note
binding Z to pay certain monies to A. Z sings and delivers thePage 17 of 22
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 22:40:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
undefined
note. A has committed extortion.
(c) A threatens to send club-men to plough up Z’s field unless Z
will sign and deliver to B a bond binding Z under a penalty to
deliver certain produce to B, and thereby induces Z to sign and
deliver the bond. A has committed extortion.
(d) A, by putting Z in fear of grievous hurt, dishonestly induces Z
to sign or affix his seal to a blank paper and deliver it to A. Z sings
and delivers the paper to A. Here, as the paper so signed may be
converted into a valuable security. A has committed extortion.”
6.3.3 So the necessary ingredients of the offence of extortion are
that the victim must be induced to deliver to any person any
property or valuable security, etc. Thus, the delivery of the
property must be with consent which has been obtained by
putting the person in fear of any injury. In contrast to theft, in
extortion there is an element of consent, of course, obtained by
putting the victim in fear of injury. In extortion, the will of the
victim has to be overpowered by putting him or her in fear of
injury. Forcibly taking any property will not come under this
definition. It has to be shown that the person was induced to part
with the property by putting him in fear of injury. Nowhere the
first informant has stated that out of fear, he executed Banakhats in
favour of the accused persons. To put it in other words, there is
nothing to indicate that there was actual delivery of possession of
property by the person put in fear. In the absence of anything to
even remotely suggest that the first informant parted with his
property after being put to fear of any injury, no offence under
Section 386 of the IPC can be said to have been made out.
Page 18 of 22
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 22:40:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
undefined
6.3.4 So far as Sections 504 and 506(2) of the IPC are concerned,
Section 504 IPC comprises of the following ingredients viz. (a)
intentional insult, (b) the insult must be such as to give
provocation to the person insulted, and (c) the accused must
intend or know that such provocation would cause another to
break the public peace or to commit any other offence. Further, in
view of definitions of Criminal Intimidation under Section 503 of
the IPC, in order to make out an offence of Criminal Intimidation,
punishable under Section 506(2) of the IPC, that it must be
established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the
complainant and that, mere threats given by the accused, without
any intention to cause alarm to the complainant, would not
constitute the offence of Criminal Intimidation. In the deceased
relied upon by the learned advocate for the applicant of the
coordinate Bench in Nalinbhai Amirali Bhanvadiya (supra), it is
observed that, it is settled proposition of law that mere threats
given by accused not with an intention to cause alarm to the
complainant would not constitute offence of criminal intimidation.
Thus, the said basic ingredients and predominant requirement to
establish or to constitute an offence punishable under Sections 504
and 506(2) of the IPC regarding intentional insult with intention to
provoke breach of peace and the intention to cause alarm to the
complainant by such threat, are conspicuously absent in the
present case.
6.3.5 As far as State’s assertion that the applicants possess a
Page 19 of 22
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 22:40:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
undefined
verified history of similar criminal antecedents, it is worth noting
that all previous FIR have quashed by consent of the respective
informants. Thus, based on vague and omnibus allegations in the
FIR cannot form the factual foundation required to sustain a
criminal trial.
6.3.6 For offence under the Money lenders Act except for the
assertion of Rs.50,000/- being taken in advance while parting with
the money by accused and entering in to Banakhat as interest @ 5%
for two months in advance which is falsified from the recitals of
registered Banakhat there is only statement of agent with regard to
Rs.35,000/- worth onion being transferred in the name of accused.
Except this amount of Rs.35,000/-, there is no evidence worth the
name of the informant having paid a single rupee towards interest
to the accused persons either in cash or through banking channel
or UPI which makes the averments attracting penal provisions of
Money Lender Act unacceptable.
d) Unexplained Delay and Lack of Bona Fides:
6.4 The applicants have demonstrated that the FIR suffers from
an extraordinary delay of nearly two years from the date of the
alleged initial threats. In Bhajan La‘s case, the Supreme Court
established that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fides or maliciously instituted with an oblique
motive for wreaking vengeance, the High Court, under SectionPage 20 of 22
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 22:40:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
undefined
482, ought to intervene to prevent the abuse of the process of any
Court.
6.4.1 The timeline demonstrates that the criminal machinery was
set in motion only after the contractual relations broke down and
civil remedies were actively pursued. The delay, when juxtaposed
with the parallel civil litigation, indicates that the criminal
complaint was designed as a retaliatory defence mechanism to
evade the specific performance of the executed property contracts.
7. SUMMING UP:
7.1 On evaluation of the facts on hand, this Court finds that the
essential character of the dispute between the parties is purely civil
and contractual. The invocation of criminal provisions under
Sections 384 and 386 of the IPC represents a clear instance of a civil
transaction being cloaked in criminality to gain an unfair
advantage in an active property dispute. Given that the competent
Civil Court has already seized the matter, granted injunctive relief,
and affirmed the maintainability of the suit by dismissing the
Order 7 Rule 11 application, the continuation of the criminal
prosecution would amount to a gross abuse of the process of law.
From the entire reading of the papers of the Charge-sheet as well
as the FIR, the present case would squarely fall within parameters
(1), (3), (5), and (7) laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan La’s
case (supra).
Page 21 of 22
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 22:40:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
undefined
8. CONCLUSION:
8.1 Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 6114 of 2021 and 3135 of
2021 are allowed. The First Information Report registered against
the applicants, referred in Paragraph 2 above, Charge-sheet and all
consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby
quashed and set aside qua the applicants. Rule is made absolute,
accordingly.
8.2 Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed.
8.3 Direct service is permitted.
[ P. M. Raval, J. ]
mahendra+hiren/11tss20726+
Page 22 of 22
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 22:40:16 IST 2026
