In a significant decision by the Gujarat High Court, the case involving Sadguru Fabrics has resulted in the quashing of the FIR and all related proceedings. The court highlighted the necessity of establishing dishonest inducement for the offence under Section 420 of IPC. Following a settlement between the parties, the complainant and 41 witnesses filed affidavits supporting the quashing of the complaint. This judgment underscores the court’s stance against the misuse of criminal courts for settling civil disputes. #GujaratHighCourt #LegalJudgment #QuashingFIR #LegalCase
Facts
- Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed to quash FIR C.R. No. I-407/2019
- FIR registered at Salabatpura Police Station, Surat City for offenses under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC
- Applicants seek quashing of the complaint and all consequential proceedings
Arguments
- The original complainant has filed an Affidavit stating that the dispute has been resolved amicably.
- The original complainant has no objection to quashing the proceedings as there is no remaining grievance.
- The applicant is engaged in textile manufacturing and frequents a textile market in Surat.
- The complainant provided goods worth Rs. 22,63,719 to the applicant based on trust but payment was not received.
- Upon inquiry, it was discovered that 41 other persons had also been cheated by the applicant.
- Learned advocate Mr. Jaydevsinh Chudasama represents the original complainant.
- The applicant operates in the textile business under the name Sadguru Fabrics.
Analysis
- The complaint in question was filed nearly three years after the last date fixed for registration of the sale deed.
- When the offence was made out based on the first complaint, a second complaint was filed with new allegations against the appellant
- The motive behind the second complaint appears to be converting a civil dispute into a criminal one to pressure the appellant for a refund.
- Consideration of whether the power under Section 482 of the CrPC is warranted is necessary.
- The power under Section 482 of the CrPC is broad and requires careful exercise.
- The first complaint only requested a refund of the amount paid.
- A settlement between the parties led to the complainant and 41 witnesses filing affidavits stating no objection if the complaint is quashed.
- The court refers to various judgments to support the quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings.
- The court emphasizes the need for dishonest inducement to prove the offence under Section 420 of the IPC.
- Quoting from different cases, it is highlighted that every breach of contract does not lead to the offence of cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is proven.
- The court asserts that criminal courts should not be misused for settling civil disputes or personal scores.
- It is stated that if a civil dispute is camouflaged as a criminal one, it can be considered an abuse of the process of the court.
- The court notes that continuing the trial after mutual settlement between the parties would be pointless, citing relevant Supreme Court decisions.
- The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where facts are incomplete and hazy.
- Evidence must be collected and produced before the Court for a clear understanding.
- Issues involved, whether factual or legal, should have sufficient material for a true perspective.
- No strict rule can be laid down for the High Court to quash proceedings at any stage.
- Exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction should not stifle legitimate prosecution.
- Court decisions should be based on sound principles when utilizing inherent power.
Decision
- Applicant in jail to be released immediately if not required in any other case
- Rule made absolute
- Direct service permitted
- Impugned complaint C.R. No I-407/2019 at Salabatpura Police Station, Surat City and all related proceedings are quashed
- Application allowed
Case Title: DHAVAL MAHESHCHANDRA AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCR.A/5516/2024
