MANOJBHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI MOVALIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of petitions preferred by the applicants-original accused under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeks to prevent the abuse of process of law. According to the applicants, allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected in support thereof, even when taken on the face value, would not prima facie constitute an offence and even uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR do not disclose commission of offence. It is averred that where the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide or the proceeding are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance or with an intention to extort money by pressurizing the applicants (accused) or when on the face of it, the criminal proceedings are apparently used for harassment, it deserves quashment. Last but not the least is the issue of inexplicable delay in lodging of FIR strenuously pressed into service. It is the say of applicants that the present proceedings are nothing, but pure and obvious abuse of process of law, therefore, the applicants are before this Court seeking quashment of the FIR.

(2.) Necessary facts, bereft of details, deserve to be mentioned at the outset.

(3.) It emerges from the chronology of events that in the pending civil proceedings for cancellation of registered sale deed, order of injunction has not favoured the complainant before the trial Court in the Special Civil Suit No.44 of 2009. And thereafter in Appeal from Order No.27 of 2016 before this Court, also he has failed to get any favourable order. Although civil litigation started from the year 2008, she has chosen to launch criminal prosecution by way of FIR in the year 2014. Undoubtedly, the complaint preferred is grossly delayed. For transaction between 1982 and 2009, FIR came to be filed on 2nd August, 2014. It is also quite apparent from the record that the complainant approached the Revenue Authority in the year 2007 and the trial Court for impleading herself as party defendant in Civil Suit No.390 of 2006 preferred by Jayantibhai i.e.son of Naniben on November 26, 2008. Thus, from the year 2007, the complainant was aware of her rights being breached in respect of the suit property, and therefore, for cancellation of the sale deed, the civil suit also came to be preferred, as mentioned hereinabove on 31st January, 2009, being Special Civil Suit No. 44 of 2009.