Allowed

Harpalsinh @ Sanjaysinh Zala v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC8 Feb 2022SCR.A/3177/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge High Court order disposed of an application seeking quashing of an FIR under Sections 506(2) and 114 IPC. The court held that the FIR lacked specific allegations against the applicants, the main accused was deceased, and the complained-of loan transaction was factually unsupported, granting relief.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the Criminal Complaint being II-C.R. No. 543 of 2013 and subsequent proceedings qua the petitioners; Rule made absolute.

Harpalsinh @ Sanjaysinh Zala Vs State of Gujarat — Quashing and FIR | Gujarat HC (2022)

¶1

R/SCR.A/3177/2013 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3177 of 2013

¶4

========================================================

¶5

HARPALSINH @ SANJAYSINH ZALA & 1 other(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)

¶8

========================================================

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

MR PARAM SHAH FOR MR ABHISHEK M MEHTA(3469) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2

¶11

MR AMIT SOLIYA FOR MR.JAY S SHAH(7244) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS MAITHILI D MEHTA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶12

========================================================

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

¶14

Date : 08/02/2022

¶15

ORAL ORDER

¶16

Heard learned Advocate Shri Param Shah for learned Advocate Shri Abhishek Mehta on behalf of the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Maithili D. Mehta on behalf of respondent no.1- State and learned Advocate Shri Amit Soliya for learned Advocate Shri Jay Shah on behalf of respondent no. 2- original complainant.

¶17

Rule. Learned Advocates waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

¶18

By way of this petition the petitioners pray for quashing of FIR being II- C.R. No. 543 of 2013 registered with the Mehsana City ‘B’ Division Police Station District; Mehsana on 23.08.2013 for offences punishable under sections 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

Learned Advocate Shri Param Shah on behalf of the petitioners would submit that a bare perusal of the FIR would show that very

¶20

Page 1 of 4

¶21

R/SCR.A/3177/2013 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2022

¶22

ambiguous allegations have been levelled by the complainant against the present petitioners. It is mentioned that partner at the relevant point of time in a business with the complainant and his father, had availed of some loan and wheres the present petitioners were allegedly threatening the complainant with regard to repayment of the loan in question. Learned Advocate Shri Shah would submit that there are no details as stated in the complaint as to when in what manner and how the petitioners had threatened the complainant. Learned Advocate would further submit that while a specific allegation has been levelled against a co-accused Munna Panchal has to having called the father of the complainant and threatened him no such specific allegation has been levelled against the present petitioners. Learned Advocate would therefore submit that a bare reading of the complain not revealing any offence being committed by the petitioners, this Court may interfere with the impugned complaint insofar as petitioners herein are concerned.

¶23

Learned APP Ms. Mehta has tendered a report by the Investigating Officer. The report inter alia shows that at some point of time one Atulbhai babubhai Shah was a Directer in Hotel Sahara Bridge in which the complainant and his father were also directors. The report further shows that a loan had been availed with regard to the Hotel in question from one M/s Urban Bank and whereas it is specifically stated that no loan has been availed with regard to the Hotel from Punjab National Bank. Learned APP would further draw the attention of this Court that the said Shah Atulbhai according to report having no more remaining in the business with the complainant and his father.

¶24

As against the same learned Advocate Shri Soliya for Shri Jay Shah has vehemently opposed this petition. Learned Advocate Shri Soliya would submit that specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioners of intimidating and threatening the complainant and his father for repayment

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

R/SCR.A/3177/2013 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2022

¶27

of the loan availed by Shah Atulbhai. Learned Advocate would under such circumstance submit that no case for interference is made out and this Court may reject the petition.

¶28

Learned Advocate Shri Soliya upon a query by this Court as requested this Court status of the partnership would submit that as such Ms. Atulbhai Babubhai Shah is no more a partner and furthermore learned Advocate would fairly submit that accused no. 1 -Atulbhai Babubhai Shah had already expired.

¶29

Having heard learned Advocates for the parties, and having perused the complaint, it appears that there is considerable substance in the submission made by learned Advocate Shri Param Shah that the FIR does not allege any specific offence as having been committed by the petitioners herein. In the FIR it is very generally mentioned that the petitioners were pressurizing and threatening the complainant and his father for repayment of the loan availed by Atulbhai Babubhai Shah from Punjab National Bank.

¶30

Furthermore from the report it also appears that no loan had been availed from Punjab National Bank for and in relation to the Hotel in question i.e Hotel Sahara Bridge and furthermore since it also appears that main accused i.e. Atulbhai Babubhai Shah, on whose behest the petitioners had allegedly threatened and pressurized the complainant and his father no more being alive, and the petitioners having been protected from the year 2013 till date in the nature of further proceedings with regard to impugned complaint being stayed, therefore in the considered opinion of this Court, the petition deserves interference.

¶31

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the Criminal Complaint being IIC.R. No. 543 of 2013 registered with the Mehsana City ‘B’ Division Police Station District; Mehsana on 23.08.2013 for offences punishable under

¶32

Page 3 of 4

¶33

R/SCR.A/3177/2013 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2022

¶34

NIRU

¶35

sections 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom is quashed qua the petitioners. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. The petition stands disposed of as allowed.

¶36

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)

¶37

Page 4 of 4

Harpalsinh @ Sanjaysinh Zala v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harpalsinh @ Sanjaysinh Zala v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Darpan @ Ajay Jentibhai Solanki Vs State of Gujarat

Varsha @ Tinniben Sendhabhai Chaudhari Vs State of Gujarat

Vinodbhai Gokulbhai Kahar Vs State of Gujarat

Sanjay Becharji Gohel Vs State of Gujarat

Nandlal B Chauhan Vs State of Gujarat

Shri Jivdaya Mandal Rapar Panjrapole Vs State of Gujarat