Holding

The Court held that the FIR does not disclose any cognizable offence and its continuation would amount to an abuse of process, thereby quashing the FIR and all related criminal proceedings.

Summary

The High Court of Gujarat considered applications under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash FIR No. I‑68 of 2012, which alleged offences of forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy relating to a disputed piece of land claimed by the Ramji Mandir Trust and a de facto complainant. The petitioners argued that the dispute was essentially civil, that the FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay without a plausible explanation, and that the alleged offences lacked the essential ingredients of the IPC sections invoked. The respondents contended that the petitioners had forged documents, falsified revenue entries and maliciously used the criminal process to retain possession of the land. The Court examined the statutory scope of Section 482, applying the Bhajan Lal test and the four‑step framework from Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani, and found that the FIR did not prima facie establish any offence and was an abuse of process. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the FIR and all consequent criminal proceedings against the petitioners.

Issues considered

The FIR prima facie establishes any offence under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 447, 120B and 114 of the IPC.
Whether the dispute is civil in nature and the criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of process under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR defeats the prosecution’s case.
Whether the alleged forged documents and false affidavits satisfy the mens rea requirements of the offences.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 114, s. 120B, s. 406, s. 420, s. 447, s. 465, s. 467, s. 468, s. 471, s. 474

Subjects

land disputeforgerycriminal breach of trustSection 482 CrPCmalicious prosecutioncivil vs criminal jurisdictiondelay in FIRabuse of process

Judgment

R/CR.MA/3496/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET
ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 3496 of 2014
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 13424 of 2012

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

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

Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
================================================
JITENDRABHAI CHIMANLAL PATEL & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================
Appearance:
MR IH SYED, SR ADVOCATE with MR CHETAN K
PANDYA(1973) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR YASH N NANAVATY(5626) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR KM ANTANI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

Date : 30/06/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. These applications under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 (the Code) are preferred praying to quash the FIR

Page 1 of 25
R/CR.MA/3496/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026

being C.R. No. I-68 of 2012, lodged before Sachin Police Station,
Dist.: Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420,
465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 447, 120B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (IPC).

2. As both the matters arise out of the same FIR, the same came
to be heard together and are being decided by this common
judgment.

3. Outlined facts of the prosecution case are that the accused,
are the then President and Trustee of the Ramji Mandir Trust,
Talati etc., allegedly, in collusion with each other, created forged
and fabricated documents relating to the joint family property
belonging to the de facto complainant, got Notarized the
documents and thereby, wrongly got entered the name of Ramji
Mandir Trust in revenue records viz. Form 12 - Pani Patrak and on
the basis of such bogus entry, presented appeal before the Deputy
Collector as well as the Secretary, Revenue Department presenting
false information as true and despite such entry being false and
forged, submitted affidavit to that effect and thereby, kept illegal
possession of the land. Further, President of Vanz-Sachin Gram
Vikas Sahakari Mandli, on the basis of Entry No. 524 dated
01.08.1956 made in the revenue records in the name of the Mandli,
without producing any evidence, filed appeal before the Deputy
Collector and the Secretary, Revenue Department and thereby,
kept illegal possession of the land and the Talati had, in collusion

Page 2 of 25
R/CR.MA/3496/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026

with the President of the Ramji Mandir Trust, made bogus entry.
Thus, all the accused, in collusion with each other, presenting false
facts and information as true, filed appeals before the competent
authority and produced forged affidavits and then losing the lis,
made false claim on the joint family property (land) of the
complainant, committed the offence in question, for which, FIR in
question came to be registered.

4. Heard, Mr. I. H. Syed, Senior Counsel, assisted by learned
advocate Mr. Chetan K. Pandya, for the applicants, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K. M. Antani for the respondent
No. 1 – State and learned advocate Mr. Yash Nanavaty for the
respondent No. 2 - de facto complainant, at length.

4.1 The bone contention of the learned senior advocate for the
applicants is that the ingredients of the offence alleged against the
present applicants are not at all satisfied.

4.2 Learned senior advocate for the applicants would submit
that lands in question were Devsthan lands and were occupied by
Ramji Mandir and first revenue entry being Entry No. 11 dated
19.10.1929 which was in the name of heirs of Narandas Guru
Hanumandasji, who was the then Administrator of Lalji Maharaj.
It is submitted that Ramji Mandir Trust came into existence later. It
is stated that the de facto complainant, only with a view to take
possession of the said lands, has initiated the criminal proceedings

Page 3 of 25
R/CR.MA/3496/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026

by putting the village people in fear for which, the village people
also represented before various authorities. It is further submitted
that vide Entry No. 524 dated 01.07.1942, the same was made in the
name of Inamdars as Administrators of Lalji Maharaj. Thereafter,
by Entry No. 653 dated 02.07.1948 in the name of Babubhai
Gulabbhai and others as Administrators of Lalji Mandir which was
then a Devsthan land. Thereafter, vide Entry No. 79 dated
22.11.1948, name of Babubhai Nagarsheth and others were added
as Administrators of Ramji Mandir vide Entry No. 525 dated
29.09.1963 was affected in connection with Section 88(B) of the
Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The Devsthan Inami
Act was abolished w.e.f. 15.11.1969 and therefore, the consequent
Entry Nos. 1254, 1255 and 1292 dated 12.02.1977 and 29.04.1977
were entered and were pertaining to tenancy cases which were in
favour of the Ramji Mandir Trust. In effect, the land in question
belong to Ramji Mandir Trust and therefore, in the submissions of
the learned senior advocate for the applicants, the Administrators
and Trustees thereof, cannot be considered to be foreingnors to the
Trust land.

4.3 It is further submitted that name of Babubhai Nagarsheth
was entered into the revenue records as an Administrator,
however vide Entry No. 161 dated 20.04.1957, the names of heirs of
Babubhai Nagarsheth were mutated as he expired on 19.02.1957
which is not permissible as Babubhai Nagarsheth’s name was
running in the capacity of Administrator only. Thus, it clearly

Page 4 of 25
R/CR.MA/3496/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026

transpires that the complainant is trying to take undue advantage
of own wrong.

4.4 It is further submitted by the learned senior advocate for the
applicants that on 06.04.2013, the respondent No. 2 came to the
lands in question with around 100 people and JCB Machines and
sought to take over forceful possession of the lands, to which, the
village people opposed. The police authority concerned, called the
applicants to settle the matter when they were arrested and now
they are on regular bail. It is stated that the applicants have also
challenged the inaction on the part of the police as report dated
06.03.2013 forwarded on 07.04.2013. It is further submitted that
later on supplementary Charge-sheet was also filed on 18.06.2013.

4.5 It is further stated that allegation pertaining to filing a false
affidavit, the issue is still at large as Revision Application filed by
the Trust is still pending before the SSRD. Further, action against
the applicants is barred by Section 195 of Code. It is further
submitted that action on the part of the investigating agency in
arraigning the applicants is nothing but a malicious prosecution
and deserves to be quashed.

4.6 It is submitted that the dispute, even otherwise, is of civil in
nature which is being given a criminal colour.

4.7 Making such submissions, it is urged that present FIR and

Page 5 of 25
R/CR.MA/3496/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026

the consequential proceedings qua the applicants may be quashed
and set aside as no prima facie case is made out against the present
applicants.

4.8 In support, the learned senior advocate for the applicants has
relied on decisions in Kishan Singh (Dead) Through LRs v. Gurpal
Singh and Others, (2010) 8 SCC 775 and in Shri Lokraj And Others
v. Kishan Lal And Others, (1995) 3 SCC 291.

5. Conversely, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would
submit that Charge-sheet is filed after taking into consideration the
opinions formed by the Mamlatdar based on revenue position and
revenue proceedings, In-charge Assistant Commissioner based on
PTR register and the entries reflected therein with regard to the
properties in question and also on the opinion of the Assistant
District Registrar of the Cooperative Societies and therefore, the
factual aspect as to how the applicants are claiming their right over
the suit property is clouded.

6. The learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 - de facto
complainant in addition to the submissions made by the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, also relied upon the revenue entries
way back from 1944, which reflect that the properties in question
came to the grand father-in-law of the complainant by way of a
Sale Deed.

Page 6 of 25
R/CR.MA/3496/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026

6.1 The learned advocate for the de facto complainant would
submit that the applicants have not approached the Court with
clean hands and have suppressed the material facts and thereby,
misguided the Court. It is stated that the say that the applicants
are the Trustees of the Ramji Mandir Trust and that, they hold the
lands in question, are not supported by any documents on record.

6.2 It is stated that when the Trust itself is registered in the year
1983, to be precise on 20.12.1983, there is no question of mutating
entries in favour of the Trustees prior thereto. It is further
submitted that Entry No. 11, relied on by the applicants does not
bear the name of Ramji Mandir Trust and thus, a false statement is
made. It is stated that, in fact, legal heir of Narandas Guru
Hanumandasji i.e. Revtidas Guru Harmandas gave an application
to the Talati-cum-Mantri to transfer the land in the name of
Inamdar Saheb as he did not want to continue as an Administrator
and therefore, the land was mutated in the name of Inamdar Saheb
and from Inamdars, the said land was purchased by the grand
father-in-law of the de facto complainant in the year 1944 and land
was mutated in the revenue records upon Sale Deed being Entry
Nos. 583 and 584.

6.3 It is stated that mutation of name of Ramji Mandir Trust in
the revenue records is contrary to the Government Resolution
dated 24.11.1981, inasmuch as, for mutating the name, the Talati-
cum-Mantri ought to have passed a written order to change the

Page 7 of 25
R/CR.MA/3496/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026

name in the revenue records and since, the same was found true,
Talati-cum-Mantri, original Accused No. 4 came to be arrested by
the Investigation Officer (IO).

6.4 It is further stated that Devsthan Inamdar Act came to be
abolished by the State Government w.e.f. 15.11.1969, whereby, as
per Section 6A, the land was required to be transferred in the
name of owner of the said land.

6.5 It is stated that the applicants have not produced RTS
Revision No. 40 of 2011 pending before the Special Secretary
(Appeals) but have not deliberately not produced an order dated
27.12.2011 passed by the said authority which prima facie indicates
that the revenue authorities did not find any document prima facie
establishing that name of Ramji Mandir Trust was ever mutated in
revenue records and therefore, dismissed the stay application
therein.

6.6 In support of his case, the learned advocate for the
respondent No. 2 would rely on decisions in the cases of
Dharambeer Kumar Singh v. The State of Jharkhand and Another,
2024 INSC 583; Abhishek Singh v. Ajay Kumar and Others, 2025
INSC 807; and Punit Beriwala v. The State of NCT of Delhi and
Others, 2025 INSC 582.

7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as the

Page 8 of 25
R/CR.MA/3496/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026

learned advocate for the de facto complainant would further submit
that as per the settled law of the land, inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code should be used sparingly and with a view
to curb the abuse of process of law. He submitted that in the case
on hand, a prima facie case is made out against the applicants and
hence, they requested that it is ultimately a matter of trial after
which, the truth could be churned out and hence, these
applications may not be entertained and they urged to be
dismissed.

8. Heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned
advocates for the parties and carefully gone through the material
placed on record as well as the papers of investigation.

9. Prior to assessing the factual matrix on the touchstone of
criminal jurisprudence, it is apposite to reinforce the settled legal
position governing the scope, ambit, and limits of the inherent
jurisdiction vested under Section 482 of the Code. The
jurisprudential parameters regulating the exercise of this
extraordinary power have been authoritatively catalogued by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in a long line of precedents, chief among
them being the authoritative in the case of State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal [AIR 1992 SC 604]. Therein, Hon’ble Supreme 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

Page 9 of 25
R/CR.MA/3496/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026

clip any abuse of the process of Court. The relevant portion of
Paragraph 102 of the said judgment is extracted below:

“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.

(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 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 purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.

(3) 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.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable

Page 10 of 25
R/CR.MA/3496/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026

offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) 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.

(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
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.

(7) 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.”

9.1 Evaluating the present applications on the anvil of the
principles enunciated in Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court has to
determine whether the allegations in the FIR, even when accepted
at face value, satisfy the essential statutory ingredients of Sections
406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 447, 120B and 114 of the IPC. This
Court must ensure that criminal machinery is not permitted to
degenerate into an engine of harassment where liability under
criminal law is completely absent.

9.2 The FIR reveals that the accused created forged and

Page 11 of 25
R/CR.MA/3496/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026

fabricated documents relating to the joint family property
belonging to the de facto complainant, got Notarized the
documents and thereby, wrongly got entered the name of Ramji
Mandir Trust in revenue records and on the basis of such bogus
entry, presented appeal before the Deputy Collector as well as the
Secretary, Revenue Department presenting false information as
true and despite such entry being false and forged, submitted
affidavit to that effect and thereby, were in possession of the land
illegally. Further, President of Vanz-Sachin Gram Vikas Sahakari
Mandli, on the basis of Entry No. 524 dated 01.08.1956 made in the
revenue records in the name of the Mandli, without producing any
evidence, filed appeal before the Deputy Collector and the
Secretary, Revenue Department and thereby, kept illegal
possession of the land and the Talati had, in collusion with the
President of the Ramji Mandir Trust, made bogus entry.

9.3 Evaluating the rival contentions and analyzing the
evidentiary record, the following facts emerge on record:

a) the issue involved in the matter is with regard to a land
stated to have been of the joint family property of the de facto
complainant;

b) indisputably, the possession of the land in question, as
on today, is with the de facto complainant only;

Page 12 of 25
R/CR.MA/3496/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026

c) the grand father-in-law of the de facto complainant
stated to have acquired/purchased the said land from
Inamdars i.e. Vidhyadhar Govindrao and the legal heirs of
Ganpatrao Bhimashankar by way of a Sale Deed in the year
1944 and mutated name in the revenue records based
thereon, however, no Sale Deed is produced on record to
substantiate the said fact;

d) vesting of lands in the grand father-in-law of the de
facto complainant at the hands of the Inamdars appears to be
in question since Civil Suit for declaring them as owners of
the land based on such transaction is also rejected thus the
title of the complainant is clouded;

e) from a perusal of the FIR, it appears that in the year
2001 when the de facto complainant desired to fence the lands
in question, the President and the Trustees of the Ramji
Mandir Trust as well as the President of the Vanz-Sachin
Gram Vikas Sahakari Mandli stopped them to do so saying
that the ownership and possession of the said lands were
with them. Thus, despite the de facto complainant having
knowledge of such a position, she preferred to file the FIR in
question only in 2012, precisely on 28.07.2012 and for such an
exorbitant delay of about 12 years, there is no plausible
explanation forthcoming on record. Though, the aspect of
delay can be gone in to during trial however, considering

Page 13 of 25
R/CR.MA/3496/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026

other attended circumstances delay also hits to the root of
the case more particularly having lost in civil suit and also as
held in the case of Kishan Singh (Supra) the filing of belated
FIR without any plausible explanation would amount to
abuse of process of law;

f) so far as offence of cheating is concerned, the intention
to deceive must exist at the very inception. In the instant
case, nothing such a sort prima facie appears on record to
substantiate such a fact. Also, as noted earlier, the
possession of the land in question is with the de facto
complainant only, however, has not produced any Sale Deed
for showing her right over the property;

g) there is an absolute lack of material demonstrating any
criminality involved in the case on hand as only bare
allegations without any proof therefor, are made in the FIR
and that, the dispute appears to be solely of civil nature to
which, criminal colour is tried to be given;

h) the record is completely barren of any evidence
suggesting any forgery and/or false representation by the
applicants or claiming the right over the property as owners
of land though and both the parties are resting their claims
on revenue entries which were existing prior to their birth
and claiming right on such revenue entries by both the sides

Page 14 of 25
R/CR.MA/3496/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026

cannot be said to attracting provisions of 406, 420, 465, 467,
468, 471, 474, 447 of IPC.

i) to understand when these sections of the IPC are
legally "attracted," the prosecution must satisfy specific,
distinct components known as essential ingredients. Here is
the structured breakdown of the necessary ingredients for
each section as mentioned in the FIR:

i.a) Section 406: Criminal Breach of Trust:

This section provides the punishment for "Criminal Breach
of Trust" (which is defined under Section 405).

Ingredient 1: The accused must be entrusted with property
or with dominion (control) over that property.

Ingredient 2: The accused must dishonestly misappropriate,
convert it to their own use, or use/dispose of that property.

Ingredient 3: Such disposal must be in violation of a
direction of law prescribing how the trust is to be discharged,
or any legal contract (express or implied) touching the
discharge of the trust.

When it is attracted: When someone lawfully gives
something to hold or manage, and one dishonestly pockets it
or violates the agreement to use it for oneself/one’s own
benefit.

i.b) Section 420: Cheating and Dishonestly Inducing
Delivery of Property:

Cheating is defined in Section 415; Section 420 is the

Page 15 of 25
R/CR.MA/3496/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026

aggravated form where property is delivered as a result.

Ingredient 1: Deception of a person by the accused.

Ingredient 2: Fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that
person to deliver any property to someone, or to consent to
retain property.

Ingredient 3: Mens Rea at Inception: The intention to
deceive must exist at the very inception of the transaction. A
mere breach of a promise later on does not equal cheating
unless the bad intent was there on Day one.

i.c) The Forgery Cluster (Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 474):

Forgery under the IPC acts like a chain reaction. Section 465
is the base, while the others depend on what was forged, why
it was forged, or how it was used.

[Section 465: Base Forgery]

[Section 467] [Section 468] [Section 471 &
474]
Forging a valuable Forging Using or
security or will specifically to possessing a
cheat someone forged document

i.d) Section 465: Punishment for Forgery:

This is the basic offense of making a false document (defined
under Sections 463 and 464).

Ingredient 1: The creation of a false document or false
electronic record (or part of one).

Ingredient 2: The intent must be to cause damage/injury to
the public or any person, support a false claim/title, cause
anyone to part with property, or commit fraud.

Page 16 of 25
R/CR.MA/3496/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026

i.e) Section 467: Forgery of Valuable Security, Will, etc.:

This is a severe, highly punishable form of forgery due to the
nature of the document involved.

Ingredient 1: The elements of basic forgery (Section 465)
must be present.

Ingredient 2: The forged document must explicitly purports
to be a valuable security, a will, an authority to adopt, or a
document giving authority to receive money, principal,
interest, or goods. (e.g., forging a land Sale Deed or a bank
cheque).

i.f) Section 468: Forgery for Purpose of Cheating:

Ingredient 1: The accused committed forgery.

Ingredient 2: The accused did so with the specific intent
that the forged document would be used to cheat someone.

Note: The actual cheating does not need to be completed; the
mere act of creating the fake document with the intent to
cheat attracts this section.

i.g) Section 471: Using as Genuine a Forged Document:

This section punishes the use of the fake document rather
than its creation.

Ingredient 1: Fraudulent or dishonest use of a document as
genuine.

Ingredient 2: The accused must have knowledge or a
definitive reason to believe that the document was actually
forged.

When it is attracted: If one knowingly hands a fake land
entry or certificate to a government officer to claim an

Page 17 of 25
R/CR.MA/3496/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026

advantage, it triggers Section 471.

i.h) Section 474: Possession of a Forged Document (under
Sec 466 or 467):

Ingredient 1: The accused is in physical or constructive
possession of a forged document.

Ingredient 2: The document must be of a specific high-value
category (like a valuable security or record under Section
467).

Ingredient 3: The accused has knowledge it is fake and
harbors the intent to use it as genuine when the opportunity
arises.

i.j) Possession and Land Offenses:

Section 447: Punishment for Criminal Trespass -
Criminal Trespass (defined in Section 441) protects
actual possession, not just legal ownership.

Ingredient 1: Entry into or upon property in the possession
of another. (Or, if the entry was lawful, unlawfully
remaining there).

Ingredient 2: The intent behind the entry/remaining must
be to:

1. Commit an offense; OR

2. Intimidate, insult, or annoy the person who is in
possession of that property.

When it is attracted: If physical possession remains un-
disrupted with the original party, a mere paper claim or oral
dispute over a boundary does not automatically satisfy the
ingredients of criminal trespass.

Page 18 of 25
R/CR.MA/3496/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026

9.4 Tested on the aforesaid sections none of the ingredients of
IPC are attracted in as much as the claim of both the parties over
the disputed land is based on revenue records and as such the
claim of parties is pending for adjudication before the revenue
authorities. Preparing an affidavit based on the entries in revenue
records cannot amount to making of forged documents or false
documents as the very ingredients of mens rea are missing. The
entries, as noted above are even prior to the birth of the applicants
as well as the complainant. The complainant on the other hand has
miserably failed to produce title deeds and having lost civil suit for
declaration as an “owner” and the fact of possession of the land
would reflect her intentions otherwise. The complainant asserted
ownership via a 1944 Sale Deed through her grandfather-in-law.
They argued the Ramji Mandir Trust was only registered in 1983,
making any prior revenue mutations in its name legally impossible
and fraudulent. The dispute fundamentally boils down to
conflicting interpretations of revenue entries (Form 7/12, Form 6,
Pani Patrak) inheritance claims, and the impact of land abolition
laws. Where a controversy is predominantly civil, criminal
machinery cannot be allowed to degenerate into an engine of
harassment. The impugned FIR is a classic case of malicious
prosecution and a manifest abuse of the process of law,
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to give a
predominantly civil dispute a criminal cloak.

9.5 Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v.

Page 19 of 25
R/CR.MA/3496/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026

State of Uttar Pradesh [AIROnline 2025 SC 956] recently
synthesized the jurisprudence governing Section 482 of the Code
and formulated a strict four-step analytical framework to evaluate
petitions seeking the quashing of criminal trials at their inception.
The framework dictates:

“20. The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity
of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the
power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC:

(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused
is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of
sterling and impeccable quality?

(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the
accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the
charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is
sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions
contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as
would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn
the factual basis of the accusations as false.

(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the
accused, has not been refuted by the
prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it
cannot be justifiably refuted by the
prosecution/complainant?

(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would
result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not
serve the ends of justice?

If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial
conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such
criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing

Page 20 of 25
R/CR.MA/3496/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026

justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which
would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial...”

9.6 Applying the aforementioned four-step test to the facts on
hand, the case put up by the applicants is of unimpeachable
quality rulling out the factual assertions contained in the FIR and
the material, as such, cannot be justifiably refuted by respondents.
The same cannot be lightly brushed aside by a Court of law, even
at the preliminary stage of quashing.

10. The learned advocate for the de facto complainant has relied
on a decision in Dharambeer Kumar Singh (supra). In the said
case, the Apex Court found that adjudication was required as the
respondent found beneficiary which could not absolve him from
the criminal liability. In the case at hand, while the facts are
completely different, admittedly, there is nothing on record to
suggest that the applicants have taken any benefit inasmuch as the
possession of the lands in question is with the de facto complainant
only. Hence, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the
case on hand.

10.1 So far as decision in the case of Abhishek Singh (supra),
relied by the learned advocate for the de facto complainant is
concerned, it was a case of cross FIR, where the gold pledged by
the appellant with the bank in lieu of funds (loan) required by him,
came to be revalued against the agreement, though appellant
repaid the loan amount; the gold found to be counterfeit against

Page 21 of 25
R/CR.MA/3496/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026

the fact that while availing loan, it was valued. In the said facts
and circumstances of the case, the Court came to the conclusion
that fraud, if any, at the first evaluation or the second, could be
unearthed at the trial only. In the instant case, while the facts are
completely different, as said earlier, there is nothing on record to
show prima facie that the applicants have availed any undue
benefit out of the alleged act. Hence, this decision also would not
be of any help to the de facto complainant.

10.2 So far as decision relied on by him the learned advocate for
the de facto complainant in Punit Beriwala (supra) is concerned, in
that case, the Apex Court found that the accused persons by
misrepresentation and deception entered into multiple
transactions with respect to the subject property. However, in the
case on hand, the facts are completely different. There is nothing
on record to show that accused persons had an intention to
deceive right from the beginning and entered into false
transactions and deceived. Further, the possession of the lands in
question is still with the de facto complainant only. In the
circumstances, the said decision is of no help to the de facto
complainant.

11. In the decision relied on by the learned senior advocate for
the applicants in Kishan Singh (Dead) Through LRs, the Apex
Court has in no uncertain terms observed that:

Page 22 of 25
R/CR.MA/3496/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026

“In cases where there is a delay in lodging a FIR, the Court has to
look for a plausible explanation for such delay. In absence of such
an explanation, the delay may be fatal. The reason for quashing
such proceedings may not be merely that the allegations were an
afterthought or had given a coloured version of events. In such
cases the court should carefully examine the facts before it for the
reason that a frustrated litigant who failed to succeed before the
Civil Court may initiate criminal proceedings just to harass the
other side with mala fide intentions or the ulterior motive of
wreaking vengeance on the other party. Chagrined and frustrated
litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustrations
by cheaply invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal court. The
court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a
weapon of harassment and persecution. In such a case, where an
FIR is lodged clearly with a view to spite the other party because of
a private and personal grudge and to enmesh the other party in
long and arduous criminal proceedings, the court may take a view
that it amounts to an abuse of the process of law in the facts and
circumstances of the case.” (Para 22)

11.1 If the case on hand is adverted to, as noted herein above,
there is a huge delay in lodging the FIR for which, no plausible
reason is forthcoming and that too after having lost civil suit for
declaring them as the owners of the property.”

11.2 Further, in the decision relied on by the learned senior
advocate for the applicants in Shri Lokraj and Others (supra), the
Apex Court has held that, “Consequent to the abolition, the pre-
existing right, title and interest of the inamdar or any person having
occupation of the inam lands stood divested and vested in the State until
re-grant is made. The inamdar, thereby lost the pre-existing right, title
and interest in the land. The right to partition itself also has been lost by

Page 23 of 25
R/CR.MA/3496/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026

the statutory operation unless re-grant is made” (Para 4).

11.3 In the instant case also, the lands in question are Inami
properties however, the complainant claiming it to have
purchased from Inamdars. Without expression any opinion on the
said aspect which will directly affect the rights of the respective
parties which can be decided in an appropriate proceeding the
said aspect is left open as not relevant to decide the issue in the
case on hand except for keeping in view the fact that the
complainants case rests upon the said claim.

12. The Apex Court in the decision in Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia
& Another etc. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Others Others,
reported in AIR 1988 SC 709, the Court held as under:

“The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the
initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the
court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made
prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into
consideration any special features which appear in a particular case
to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to
permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the
court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the
opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and,
therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a
criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into
consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding
even though it may be at a preliminary stage. A case of breach of
trust may be both a civil wrong and criminal offence. But there
would be certain situations where it would predominantly be a
civil wrong and may or may not amount to criminal offence. The

Page 24 of 25
R/CR.MA/3496/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026

instant case is one of that type where, if at all, the facts may
constitute a civil wrong and the ingredients of the criminal offence
are wanting”. (Para 7)

13. In view of the distinct absence of the essential ingredients
required to attract Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 447,
120B and 114 of the IPC, forcing the parties to endure a full-
fledged criminal trial, would be an exercise in futility, more
particularly, the facts on hand constitute civil wrong lacking
ingredients of afore-stated offences.

14. In the result and for the reasons stated herein above these
applications succeed and are hereby allowed. First Information
Report being C.R. No. I-68 of 2012, registered with Sachin Police
Station, Dist.: Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 406,
420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 447, 120B and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 along with all consequential criminal proceedings
flowing therefrom, stands quashed and set aside qua the present
applicants only.

14.1 Rule is made absolute in the aforementioned terms. Direct
service is permitted.

[ P. M. Raval, J. ]
hiren/8tss11626+

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: HIREN VIRENDRABHAI MER(HC00351), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 30/06/2026 12:51:17

Page 25 of 25