Gujarat High Court
Chimiben Wd/O Ramjibhai Somabhai vs State Of Gujarat on 18 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4921/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 4921 of 2014
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR VACATING INTERIM RELIEF) NO.
1 of 2025
In R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 4921 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
CHIMIBEN WD/O RAMJIBHAI SOMABHAI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR R R MARSHALL ASSISTED BY MR AB MUNSHI(1238) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MOHIT P PATHAK(7344) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MS VRUNDA SHAH, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 18/03/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present application is filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment
of the FIR registered with Dumas Police Station,
District Surat, being I-C.R. No.11 of 2014 dated
25.03.2014, for the offences punishable under
Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 166, 167, 171,
181, 182, 191, 192, 193, 196, 199 and 200 of the
Page 1 of 17
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 23 20:46:03 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4921/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
Indian Penal Code, against 18 accused persons
including the present applicants, who have been
arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 6.
2. As per the recitals of the FIR, the complainant, who is
the respondent No.3 herein and the real sister of the
applicants, has alleged that the agricultural land
bearing Survey No.51/2 (old Survey No.71/1/B)
admeasuring about 4400 square meters situated at
Village Magdalla, as well as land bearing Survey
No.34/1/2 (old Survey No.44/1) admeasuring about
4200 square meters situated at Village Magdalla,
were originally owned and possessed by Gulabbhai
Durlabbhai prior to the year 1949. It is further alleged
that the aforesaid lands were purchased by the
grandfather of the applicants as well as the
complainant, namely Somabhai Keshabhai, by
executing a registered conveyance deed in the year
1949, whereas the land bearing Survey No.34/1/2
was purchased by way of an oral agreement by the
said grandfather. Pursuant thereto, Mutation Entry
No.204 dated 22.06.1949 came to be entered in the
revenue record. The grandfather expired on
25.06.1981, and thereafter entries regarding the
heirs were made in the revenue record, whereby
along with the name of the father of the applicants
and the complainant, the names of six other heirs
Page 2 of 17
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 23 20:46:03 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4921/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
were also entered. Subsequently, except the name of
the father, the other names were deleted from the
revenue record on the basis of a relinquishment
deed, and the name of the father was entered as the
sole owner of the property vide Mutation Entry
No.595 dated 15.10.1981. Thereafter, the father of
the applicants and the complainant expired on
03.05.2001, and therefore the names of the heirs,
including that of the present complainant, were
mutated in the revenue record vide Mutation Entry
No.1204 dated 16.07.2001.
2.1. It is the case of the complainant that after her
marriage she was residing with her husband and
in-laws at a different place and has one son and
one daughter from the wedlock. It is further
alleged that applicant No.6, who is her brother and
a lawyer by profession, visited the complainant
and requested her to sign a power of attorney
stating that it was required for the purpose of
managing the property of their father, and that her
presence may not be required from time to time.
Accordingly, a power of attorney came to be
executed on 26.06.2004. However, the said power
of attorney was subsequently cancelled on
02.06.2005, and a notice regarding such
cancellation was issued to applicant No.5 –
Rameshbhai, in whose favour the power of
Page 3 of 17
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 23 20:46:03 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4921/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
attorney had been executed, along with a
publication in a newspaper on 11.03.2006.
2.2. It is further alleged that the complainant had
also raised objections before the Talati-cum-Mantri
of Village Magdalla, the Registrar of the Surat Sub-
Registrar’s Office, the Talati-cum-Mantri of Village
Aabhva, the Talati-cum-Mantri of Village Narthan
and the Sub-Registrar of Village Olpad. The
complainant had also issued a public notice in the
newspaper on 03.06.2005 informing about the
cancellation of the power of attorney executed in
favour of applicant No.5. It is alleged that in
connivance with the other accused persons named
in the FIR, the applicants sold the land bearing
Survey No.51/2 situated at Village Magdalla in
favour of one Shamjibhai Madhabhai Ramani in the
presence of witness Govindbhai Bhagwanbhai
Vakhariya. It is further alleged that the name of
the purchaser was mutated in the revenue record
on 18.04.2006 vide Mutation Entry No.1529
without issuance of notice under Section 135D of
the Bombay Land Revenue Code. It is further
alleged that the Mamlatdar of Choryasi Taluka, the
Deputy Collector (Stamp Duty Valuation Officer),
the witnesses, the Sub-Registrars, the purchasers
as well as the postman, in connivance with each
other, aided the present applicants in committing
Page 4 of 17
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 23 20:46:03 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4921/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
the alleged offences. The said FIR is impugned
before this Court by the present applicants.
3. Heard the learned senior advocate Mr.Marshall with
the learned advocate Mr. Munshi for the applicant,
learned advocate Mr. Mohit Pathak for the
complainant and learned APP Ms.Vrunda Shah for the
respondent-State.
4. Learned senior advocate Mr. Marshall submits that
the complainant had earlier filed Special Civil Suit
No.349 of 2010 seeking cancellation of the sale
deeds. It is submitted that the said suit came to be
dismissed for default around the year 2021, and
thereafter, an application for restoration has been
filed, which is presently pending before the learned
Civil Court. Learned senior advocate Mr. Marshall
further submits that the FIR has been lodged after an
inordinate delay of more than nine years. As per the
allegations made by the complainant, the first sale
deed was executed on 21.11.2005 and the second
sale deed was executed in the year 2008. Despite
having full knowledge of the execution of the said
deeds and having filed the civil suit in the year 2010,
the FIR came to be lodged only on 25.03.2014.It is
further submitted by the learned senior advocate Mr.
Marshall that after cancellation of the power of
Page 5 of 17
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 23 20:46:03 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4921/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
attorney executed in favour of applicant No.5, the
complainant had received an amount of
Rs.28,00,000/- and had acknowledged the receipt of
the said amount on 26.03.2007 and execution of
power of attorney. The said receipt bears the
signatures not only of the complainant but also of her
son and daughter, namely Dharmishthaben, in the
presence of three witnesses.
4.1. Learned senior advocate Mr. Marshall submits
that after the son of the complainant became an
advocate, with a view to extort more money from
the present applicants, the impugned FIR came to
be lodged alleging serious offences. It is further
submitted that even if the allegations are taken at
their face value, at the most it can be said that the
power of attorney executed in favour of applicant
No.5, namely, Rameshbhai @ Rajubhai Ramjibhai
Patel, whichi was subsequently cancelled was
used at the time of execution of sale deed.
However, it is pointed out that applicant No.5 has
expired on 16.02.2026, and therefore the
proceedings against applicant No.5 are required to
abate. In the absence of applicant No.5, who as
per the allegations is alleged to have committed
the fraud, the continuation of proceedings against
the other applicants would amount to an abuse of
Page 6 of 17
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 23 20:46:03 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4921/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
the process of law.
4.2. Learned senior advocate Mr. Marshall further
submits that the mother, against whom allegations
are also made that the property was sold in
connivance with other accused with a view to
deprive the complainant of her share in the
ancestral property, has also expired on
09.06.2015. Therefore, as the proceedings against
the mother have also abated, continuation of the
proceedings would amount to harassment at the
instance of the complainant. It is also submitted
that the complainant has arraigned several
persons as accused, including the Sub-Registrar,
Talati, witnesses and even the postman who
allegedly served the notice under Section 135D of
the Bombay Land Revenue Code at the parental
address of the complainant. According to the
learned senior advocate, the intention of the
complainant appears to be to implicate all persons,
even those who have no connection with the
applicants, in a false FIR. In that background,
learned senior advocate Mr. Marshall has prayed
that the impugned FIR be quashed and the present
application be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Mohit Pathak
appearing for the complainant submits that there are
Page 7 of 17
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 23 20:46:03 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4921/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
five different parcels of ancestral properties in which
the complainant had a share. It is submitted that in
the subsequent sale transaction of the year 2008, the
name of the complainant was shown as a signatory
and the sale consideration was also shown to have
been paid to her. It is further submitted that a power
of attorney dated 30.03.2011 was executed stating
that the earlier power of attorney executed in favour
of the brother, namely Rameshbhai Ramjibhai Patel,
was still in force.
5.1. Learned advocate Mr. Pathak has also submitted
that the receipts which are alleged to have been
issued by the complainant acknowledging the
payment are forged and fabricated documents. It
is further submitted that at this stage this Court
would not have the power to evaluate the
evidence collected during the course of
investigation, and therefore any interference by
this Court when the investigation is yet to be
concluded would be premature.
6. Learned APP Ms. Shah also supports the submissions
of the complainant and prays to dismiss this
application.
7. Having considered the submissions made by the
learned advocates for the respective parties and
Page 8 of 17
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 23 20:46:03 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4921/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
allegations made in the FIR which is filed against 19
accused narrating the offence in brief as under:
7.1. The accused persons of the present case, in
respect of the ancestral and jointly owned
agricultural lands of the complainant situated at
Village Magdalla, namely, New Survey No. 51,
Hissa No. 2 (Old Survey No. 71/1/B), admeasuring
62-35 square var and 4400 sq. meters, and
Original Survey No. 44/1 (Revisional Survey No.
34/1/2), admeasuring 4200 sq. meters, had earlier
obtained a Power of Attorney in the year 2004
from the complainant through the complainant’s
brother Rameshbhai @ Rajubhai Ramjibhai.
Thereafter, when the complainant came to know
that the said lands were being sold without his
knowledge, the complainant revoked the said
Power of Attorney in the year 2005 by issuing a
public notice as well as notices through R.P.A.D. to
his mother and all his brothers. Objections were
also submitted to the concerned Talati, Mamlatdar
and the Sub-Registrar at the relevant time.
However, despite having knowledge that the
Power of Attorney had already been cancelled, the
complainant’s mother and brothers executed sale
deeds in respect of the said lands and thereby
created false and fabricated documents. Further,
Page 9 of 17
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 23 20:46:03 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4921/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
the then Talati-cum-Mantri, Mamlatdar of Choryasi
Taluka and the Sub-Registrar registered such
documents and certified the corresponding
revenue entries. Thus, all the accused persons, in
collusion with each other, with the intention of
usurping the complainant’s lands, misused the
cancelled Power of Attorney, prepared false sale
documents, and used them as genuine, thereby
committing the alleged offence.
8. It emerges from the FIR that there exists a dispute
between the brother and the sisters with regard to
the share in the ancestral property. Undisputedly, a
power of attorney was executed in favour of
applicant No.5, namely Rameshbhai @ Rajubhai
Ramjibhai Patel, who expired on 16.02.2016. The
allegation in the FIR is that despite cancellation of
the said power of attorney, the same was misused for
executing a sale deed in favour of other accused
persons, namely accused Nos.7 and 8, who are the
purchasers. It is true that at the stage of considering
a petition for quashing of the FIR, the Court does not
have the power to evaluate the evidence in detail.
However, certain undisputed facts emerging from the
record are required to be taken into consideration,
which are stated hereinbelow:
Page 10 of 17
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 23 20:46:03 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4921/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
8.1. The power of attorney, which was executed
earlier, was subsequently cancelled on
02.06.2005. Thereafter, two sale deeds came to be
executed on 21.11.2005 and in the year 2008. The
civil suit filed in the year 2010 for cancellation of
the sale deeds came to be dismissed, and
thereafter a restoration application was preferred
after about seven months, which is still pending
adjudication. This circumstance indicates that the
dispute essentially arises out of a family dispute
concerning ancestral property. Though the civil
suit was filed in the year 2010, the FIR came to be
lodged on 25.03.2014, i.e., after a delay of about
four years. Undoubtedly, delay alone cannot be
the sole ground for quashing an FIR, however,
when considered along with other surrounding
circumstances, the same can certainly be taken
into account. The receipts forming part of the
record, which are stated to have been issued by
the complainant acknowledging receipt of an
amount of Rs.28,00,000/- dated 26.03.2007, have
been disputed by the complainant. However, the
daughter of the complainant, namely
Dharmishthaben, is also one of the signatories to
the said receipt confirming the acknowledgment of
the payment of Rs.28,00,000/-. It is also stated in
the said receipt that the power of attorneyPage 11 of 17
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 23 20:46:03 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/4921/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
executed in favour of Rajubhai was accepted by
the complainant, and since the property had been
sold, the amount from the sale consideration was
paid to the complainant. In addition to the above,
the complainant has not disputed the payment
received at the time of execution of the sale deed
dated 16.01.2008 for the property bearing Survey
No.30 situated at Village Magdalla. It is further
alleged in the FIR that the notice under Section
135D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code was
served at the parental house of the complainant.
However, in view of the acknowledgment of
receipt of payment and operation of power of
attorney by the complainant, even if such notice
was served at the parental address, the same
would not materially affect the position.
9. This Court has referred the decision rendered by the
Apex Court in the case of Randheer Singh vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in
(2021) 14 SCC 626 wherein the Apex Court has
held as under:
“33.In this case, it appears that criminal proceedings are
being taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment
against a purchaser. It is reiterated at the cost of
repetition that the FIR does not disclose any offence so
far as the appellant is concerned. There is no whisper
of how and in what manner, this appellant is involvedPage 12 of 17
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 23 20:46:03 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/4921/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
in any criminal offence and the charge-sheet, the
relevant part whereof has been extracted above, is
absolutely vague. There can be no doubt that
jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC should be used
sparingly for the purpose of preventing abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice. Whether a complaint discloses criminal offence
or not depends on the nature of the allegation and
whether the essential ingredients of a criminal offence
are present or not has to be judged by the High Court.
There can be no doubt that a complaint disclosing civil
transactions may also have a criminal texture. The High
Court has, however, to see whether the dispute of a
civil nature has been given colour of criminal offence.
In such a situation, the High Court should not hesitate
to quash the criminal proceedings as held by this Court
in Paramjeet Batra [Paramjeet Batra v. State of
Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673 : (2012) 4 SCC (Cri)
76] extracted above.
34. The given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as
also a criminal offence. Only because a civil remedy is
available may not be a ground to quash criminal
proceedings. But as observed above, in this case, no
criminal offence has been made out in the FIR read
with the charge-sheet so far as this appellant is
concerned. The other accused Rajan Kumar has died.”
10. This Court has also referred the decision rendered in
the case of R.Nagender Yadav vs. State of
Telangana and anr, reported in (2023) 2 SCC 195
and paras 16 to 19 are relevant which is reproduced
herein below:
“16. At this juncture and more particularly in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it will not
be proper to permit the criminal prosecution to proceedPage 13 of 17
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 23 20:46:03 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/4921/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
further on the allegation of the sale deed being forged.
That question will have to be decided by the civil court
after recording the evidence and hearing the parties in
accordance with law. It would not be proper having
regard to what has been highlighted by us to permit the
complainant to prosecute the appellant on this
allegation when the validity of the sale deed is being
tested before the civil court.”
11. Considering the overall circumstances of the case,
it appears that the proceedings have been initiated
with an intention to extort more money and that a
dispute which is essentially civil in nature has been
given a criminal colour. There can be no doubt that
the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is to be exercised sparingly, for
the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of the
Court or to secure the ends of justice and when the
allegations in the FIR do not disclose any cognizable
offence against the present applicants, the exercise
of such powers becomes necessary to secure the
ends of justice.
12. This Court has considered the decision rendered by
this Court relied upon by the learned advocate for the
complainant. However, on perusal of the same, in the
considered opinion of this Court, the said decision
was rendered in the peculiar facts of that case and,
therefore, the same would not render any assistance
to the case of the complainant.
Page 14 of 17
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 23 20:46:03 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4921/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
13. This Court has referred to the decision of the Apex
Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported
in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein the Apex Court
has laid down the guidelines governing the exercise
of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure which are reproduced
hereinbelow:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter
XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court
in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we have given the
following categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay
down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae
and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
(i) 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.
(ii) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code
except under an order of a Magistrate within the purviewPage 15 of 17
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 23 20:46:03 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/4921/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(iii) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support
of the same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the accused.
(iv) Where, the allegations in the FIR 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
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(v) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are 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.
(vi) 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 continuance of the proceedings 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.
(vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide 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.”
14. This case falls under the criteria (i) and (v) from the
case of Bhajan Lal (supra), therefore the
application deserves to be allowed.
Page 16 of 17
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 23 20:46:03 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4921/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
15. Resultantly, the present application is allowed. The
FIR registered with Dumas Police Station, District
Surat, being I-C.R. No.11 of 2014 dated 25.03.2014,
as well as all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is
made absolute accordingly. The Civil Application, if
any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
M.M.MIRZA
Page 17 of 17
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 23 20:46:03 IST 2026