Gujarat High Court
Prafulchandra Shivshankar Pandya vs State Of Gujarat on 18 December, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/16559/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/12/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 16559 of 2024
==========================================================
PRAFULCHANDRA SHIVSHANKAR PANDYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MADANSINGH O BAROD(3128) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. MANAN MAHETA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 18/12/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition is filed for the following prayers:
“A) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow
this petition.
B) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of
Mandamus or any writ in nature of Mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the
order dated: 8/4/2022 passed in Criminal Revision Application
No. 143/2018 and remand the matter with the direction to
look into the matter about the facts, in the interest of justice.
C) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the Respondent
authority Respondent no. 2 to take appropriate action against
accused and proceed investigation in accordance with law in
the interest of justice.
Page 1 of 4
Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Mon Dec 23 2024 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 23 21:28:16 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/16559/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/12/2024
undefined
D) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass such other and
further order/s as may be deem fit and proper looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of the
justice.”
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Madansingh O. Barod for
the petitioner and learned APP, Mr. Manan Maheta for the
respondent – State.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that
during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 145 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the possession of the
house is taken under the guise of that proceedings. He has
submitted that the petitioner was doing business in the
rented premises for which he has license, electrical bill
copies, retail invoices as well as goods purchase vouchers and
without considering such aspects, the orders were passed. He
has further submitted that both the Courts have failed in
appreciating the material available on the record and both
the Courts have committed grave error by not appreciating
material available on the record, more particularly, the fact
that the possession is taken under the guise of proceedings
under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C.
4. Learned APP, Mr. Maheta has submitted that both the
Courts below have concurrently found against the present
Page 2 of 4
Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Mon Dec 23 2024 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 23 21:28:16 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/16559/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/12/2024
undefined
petitioner and there is no scope of interference for this Court
as both the Courts below have given cogent and convincing
reasons.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made at the
bar. Both the Courts below, the learned Lower Appellate
Court, more particularly, in para 3 of the judgment has come
to the conclusion after appreciating the material available on
the record by referring to the Criminal Inquiry No.266 of
2013 and it has come to the conclusion that necessary
ingredients of the offences for loot are not brought on record
by the complainant. The learned trial Court appreciated the
provisions under Sections 202 and 203 of the Cr.P.C. and
considered the aspect that there are civil as well as criminal
litigations which were filed by the respective parties pursuant
to the said property and the Court has come to the
conclusion that the present complaint, which is filed under
Section 145 of the Cr.P.C., is also filed in view of those
proceedings as well as it was also observed in the order that
though the complaint is filed for theft and/or loot in the
premises of the complainant, but the complainant is not
giving any details that which articles are looted. Even the
name of such person is not mentioned in the complaint.
Therefore, both the Courts below have considered the factual
aspect of the matter in detail in a right perspective and
Page 3 of 4
Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Mon Dec 23 2024 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 23 21:28:16 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/16559/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/12/2024
undefined
after considering the provisions of law, the Courts below have
rightly come to the conclusion that no case is made out in
favour of the present petitioner.
6. Moreover, after perusing the judgments of both the
Courts below, this Court is of the opinion that no error is
committed by both the Courts below, neither the findings
given by the Courts below can be considered as perverse and
therefore, no interference of this Court is called for in the
present matter. Therefore, the present petition is required to
be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
SLOCK BAROT
Page 4 of 4
Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Mon Dec 23 2024 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 23 21:28:16 IST 2024