Gujarat High Court
Wilsonbhai Somchandbhai Thakor(Since … vs State Of Gujarat on 11 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6546/2017 ORDER DATED: 11/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 6546 of 2017
==========================================================
WILSONBHAI SOMCHANDBHAI THAKOR(Since deceased through legal
heirs) & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KH BAXI(150) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. SUHAIL Z SAIYED(6690) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR CHINTAN DAVE, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 11/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set
aside the judgement and order dated 31.3.2017 passed by the
Honourable Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Application no.
348/2014 confirming the order dated 24.9.2013, dismissed the
complaint u/s. 203 of Cr. P.C. passed by the Ld. Magistrate and
be pleased to further direct to proceed with the complaint in
accordance with law.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
2.1 The petitioner lodged complaint being criminal case no.
135 of 2012 in the court of Honourable Metropolitan Magistrate,
court no.5, Ahmedabad against the accused nos.2 & 3 u/s.406,Page 1 of 13
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 23:03:16 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/SCR.A/6546/2017 ORDER DATED: 11/06/2025
undefined
420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 & 114 of IPC stating the accused
nos. 2 & 3 who were agricultural tenant of the land bearing
survey no.195/197/1 of village Chosar, Taluka: Daskroi, Dist:
Ahmedabad which land, on consolidation was given block
no.162 54 882 admeasuring about 1-Hec 11 Are 54 Sq. mtrs
which is of the ownership of the petitioner and the produce were
shared. At around before the date of the complaint, the
petitioner came to know that some scandal has been committed
with respect to the said land and on inquiry, the petitioner found
that the respondent no.2 & 3 have committed various offences in
order to grab the said land as also without following the
procedure, the land has been shown in their name. The relevant
documents were also produced before the Honourable Court and
therefore, had prayed for further investigation u/s.156(3) of
Cr.P.C.
2.2 The Honourable Court by its order, sent the same for
inquiry to Karanj Police Station. The Ld. Magistrate by an order
dated 24.9.2013, dismissed the said complaint u/s.203 of
Cr.P.C. holding that no prima facie case is made out.
2.3 The petitioner being aggrieved by the same, preferred
Special Criminal Application no.910 of 2014 in this Honourable
Court and prayed for quashing and setting aside of the said
order. Honourable Court by its order dated 27th August, 2014
allowed the petitioner to avail the remedy of revision.
2.4 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied by the same, the
petitioner preferred revision application no.348 of 2014 before
the Honourable Sessions Court, Ahmedabad. The HonourablePage 2 of 13
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 23:03:16 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/SCR.A/6546/2017 ORDER DATED: 11/06/2025
undefined
Sessions Court by its order dated 31.3.2007, rejected the said
revision application.
2.5 Hence, present petition.
3. Assailing the concurrent findings of fact, learned advocate
for the petitioner would submit that both the courts below have
committed serious error in rejecting the private complaint
registered by the petitioner for the aforestated offences. After
reading private complaint, he would submit that looking to the
allegations levelled in the complaint, the learned Court below
were at least required to send the documents for FSL, so that it
can come on record that the signature made on the registered
sale deed is genuine or otherwise. He would further submit that
the learned Court below have rejected the complaint simply on
the ground that dispute is of a civil nature and the complaint of
which has been filed after long passage of time. He would
further submit that the complainant no sooner came to know
about selling of the disputed land by forging the signature of the
deceased, he filed private complaint. Upon above submissions,
he prays to allow the petition.
4. On the other hand, learned advocate for the private
respondents would submit that even on the civil front, the
petitioner has filed civil suit under Order 7 Rule 11(D) of the
CPC, which he has lost. He would further submit that even the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRA No.480 of 2015 believed
that the suit is hopelessly time barred by law of limitation and
therefore, the judgment delivered by the Coordinate Bench of
this Court also applies to the dispute between the parties and isPage 3 of 13
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 23:03:16 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/SCR.A/6546/2017 ORDER DATED: 11/06/2025
undefined
squarely covered the present issue. Upon such submissions, he
prays to dismiss the petition.
5. Learned APP while reminding this Court about supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, would
submit that until the petitioner establishes that there is palpable
illegality in the impugned orders, this Court cannot intervene th
correct such illegalities. He would further submit that both the
learned Court below have rightly noted that the sale was taken
place in 1976, which was never challenged and revenue entry
was mutated after issuing notice under the provisions of the
Land Revenue Code. He would further submit that even the
second sale was taken place. He would further submit that
complaint was also made to the SIT headed by the Collector, who
has thoroughly examined the issue and found nothing in the
matter and yet, the petitioner has filed criminal complaint, which
was also sent for investigation u/s 202 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. He would further submit that the police has
again thoroughly investigated the issue and again found no
substance in the complaint and therefore, the learned Court
below have rightly rejected the complaint. He would further
submit that nonetheless, even on civil front, the petitioner has
lost. He would further submit that even the CRA filed by the
private respondents before this Court has been allowed and the
suit filed by the petitioner for cancellation of sale deed has been
rejected in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(D) of the
Code. Upon such submission, he requests to dismiss the
petition.
6. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties,
Page 4 of 13
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 23:03:16 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/SCR.A/6546/2017 ORDER DATED: 11/06/2025
undefined
at the outset, let refer the nature of scope of the supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which
is enlightened in case of Garment Crafts Vs. Prakash Chand
Goel reported in (2022) 4 SCC 181, wherein the Hon’ble Apex
Court in para 15 and 16, held as under:-
“15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of
the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and
cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for
deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High
Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a
court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or
facts upon which the determination under challenge is based.
Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or
even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be
supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision
on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or
tribunal [Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) and Others v. Ulhas
Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and Others, (2010) 1 SCC 217]. The
jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional1
jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant
abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice.
The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in
appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to
justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person
can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or
tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary
relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of
justice.
16. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, this
Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC
97 has observed:-
“6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction
by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this
Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty
on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within
the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty
expected or required of them in a legal manner. The HighPage 5 of 13
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 23:03:16 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/SCR.A/6546/2017 ORDER DATED: 11/06/2025
undefined
Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct
all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits
of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals.
Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the
courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction
of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law
or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave
injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the
High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its
power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in
place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error,
which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High
Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior
court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the
finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly
come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has
come to.”
6.1 With profit, I may also refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in case of Sameer Suresh Gupta Through Pa Holder
Versus Rahul Kumar Agarwal, 2013 (9) SCC 374, considering
the nature of scope of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held
as under:-
“6. In our view, the impugned order is liable to be set
aside because while deciding the writ petition filed by
the respondent the learned Single Judge ignored the
limitations of the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article
227 of the Constitution. The parameters for exercise of
power by the High Court under that article were
considered by the two-Judge Bench of this Court in
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai. After considering
various facets of the issue, the two-Judge Bench culled
out the following principles: (SCC pp. 694-96, para 38)“(1)Amendment by Act 46 of 1999 with effect from
1-7-2002 in Section 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure cannot and does not affect in anyPage 6 of 13
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 23:03:16 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/SCR.A/6546/2017 ORDER DATED: 11/06/2025
undefined
manner the jurisdiction of the High Court under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
(2) Interlocutory orders, passed by the courts
subordinate to the High Court, against which
remedy of revision has been excluded by CPC
Amendment Act 46 of 1999 are nevertheless open
to challenge in, and continue to be subject to,
certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction of the High
Court.
(3) Certiorari, under Article 226 of the
Constitution, is issued for correcting gross errors
of jurisdiction i.e. when a subordinate court is
found to have acted (i) without jurisdiction – by
assuming jurisdiction where there exists none, or
(ii) in excess of its jurisdiction – by overstepping or
crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or (iii) acting in
flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure
or acting in violation of principles of natural
justice where there is no procedure specified, and
thereby occasioning failure of justice.
(4) Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of
the Constitution is exercised for keeping the
subordinate courts within the bounds of their
jurisdiction. When a subordinate court has
assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or
has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does
have or the jurisdiction though available is being
exercised by the court in a manner not permitted
by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has
occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to
exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.
(5) Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of
supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to
correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the
following requirements are satisfied: (i) the error is
manifest and apparent on the face of the
proceedings such as when it is based on clear
ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of
law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of
justice has occasioned thereby.
(6) A patent error is an error which is self-evident
Page 7 of 13
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 23:03:16 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/SCR.A/6546/2017 ORDER DATED: 11/06/2025
undefined
i.e. which can be perceived or demonstrated
without involving into any lengthy or complicated
argument or a long-drawn process of reasoning.
Where two inferences are reasonably possible and
the subordinate court has chosen to take one
view, the error cannot be called gross or patent.
(7) The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the
supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised
sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the
judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to
act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice
should occasion. Care, caution and
circumspection need to be exercised, when any of
the abovesaid two jurisdictions is sought to be
invoked during the pendency of any suit or
proceedings in a subordinate court and the error
though calling for correction is yet capable of
being corrected at the conclusion of the
proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred
thereagainst and entertaining a petition invoking
certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction of the High
Court would obstruct the smooth flow and/or
early disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High
Court may feel inclined to intervene where the
error is such, as, if not corrected at that very
moment, may become incapable of correction at a
later stage and refusal to intervene would result in
travesty of justice or where such refusal itself
would result in prolonging of the lis.
(8) The High Court in exercise of certiorari or
supervisory jurisdiction will not convert itself into
a court of appeal and indulge in reappreciation or
evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing
inferences or correct errors of mere formal or
technical character.
(9) In practice, the parameters for exercising
jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari and those
calling for exercise of supervisory jurisdiction are
almost similar and the width of jurisdiction
exercised by the High Courts in India unlike
English courts has almost obliterated the
distinction between the two jurisdictions. While
Page 8 of 13
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 23:03:16 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6546/2017 ORDER DATED: 11/06/2025
undefined
exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari,
the High Court may annul or set aside the act,
order or proceedings of the subordinate courts but
cannot substitute its own decision in place
thereof. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction the
High Court may not only give suitable directions
so as to guide the subordinate court as to the
manner in which it would act or proceed
thereafter or afresh, the High Court may in
appropriate cases itself make an order in
supersession or substitution of the order of the
subordinate court as the court should have made
in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
7. What could be noted that the petitioner who is seeking to
reverse the concurrent findings of fact of the learned Court below
is required to establish that the learned Court below have not
applied mind correctly, have not appreciated the evidence
correctly and the findings which the learned Court below have
reached should not have been the findings of ordinary prudence.
In the present case, the petitioner has filed the complaint as
stated herein above alleging that the sale deed of the land in
question was forged one, which was registered on 2.2.1976. It is
the case of the petitioner that he was not aware of execution of
the sale deed, which was registered in 1976 and that his and his
brother’s signature on the sale deed are forged. However, the
investigation carried out by the investigating officer pursuant to
the order passed by the learned trial Court indicates that prior to
filing of present complaint, the petitioner has also lodged
complaint before the SIT headed by the Collector, which was
rejected by the SIT. Even thereafter, revenue entry was mutated
after issuing notice under the provisions of the Land Revenue
Code. Even, second sale has taken place. Further, the
Page 9 of 13
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 23:03:16 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6546/2017 ORDER DATED: 11/06/2025
undefined
investigating officer carried out investigation in the complaint
and found nothing. The learned Court below believed that no
person of ordinary prudence can sit idle for long passage opf
time. The learned Court below also found that it was a case of
civil nature and correctly dismissed the complaint.
8. Even, in civil proceedings, the petitioner has failed to
success in CRA No.480 of 2015 filed before this Court by the
private respondents. The Coordinate Bench of this Court has
observed thus:-
“5.3 In accordance with the judgement of the Supreme
Court in the case of Dilboo (Smt)(Dead) By LRS. And
Others vs. Dhanraji (Smt) (Dead) and Others reported in
(2000) 7 SCC 702, it is evident that registration of the
document is deemed knowledge of such registration.
The period of limitation cannot be extended merely
because an averment is made in the plaint that they
came to know of such document only in the year 2010.
It will be in the fitness of things to reproduce the law as
set out by the Division Bench of this Court in the case
of Van Oil Petroleum Ltd vs. MV Denali (IMO NO
9438016) (EX NAME MV MARIE PAULE)
rendered in O.J. Appeal No. 15 of 2018, more
particularly paragraphs 7 to 10 which read as under:
“7. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the
plaintiff that as fraud is alleged, and therefore,
considering Section 17 of the Limitation Act, the period
till the knowledge of the fraud is required to be excluded
is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted
that on one hand, even according to the plaintiff also,
the Indian Limitation Act shall not be applicable. Even
otherwise, on merits, the aforesaid has no substance.
Even considering the averments in the Plaint, except the
bare averments in Paragraph-3, there are no further
averments / particulars of fraud. It is required to be
noted that even the fraud is alleged not at the time ofPage 10 of 13
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 23:03:16 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/SCR.A/6546/2017 ORDER DATED: 11/06/2025
undefined
the transaction but it is alleged with respect to the
subsequent transfer of the Vessel. Therefore, the fraud
is not as such alleged at the time of entering the
transaction for supply of Bunker. There are no such
pleadings or allegations in the Plaint at all. As observed
by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Ullasbhai Parsottambhai (Legal heirs of decd.) and Ors.
vs. Patel Dineshbhai Ramabhai reported in 2014 (1)
GLR 596, in order to make out a case of fraud or
coercion, all the material facts in support of such
allegations must be laid out in full and with a high
degree or precision. In the aforesaid decision, in
Paragraphs-76 and 77, it is observed and held as under:
“76. It is a plain and basic rule of pleadings that in
order to make out a case of fraud or coercion there must
be (a) an express allegation or fraud, and (b) all the
material facts in support of such allegations must be
laid out in full and with a high degree of precision. In
other words, if coercion or fraud is alleged, it must be
set out with full particulars. (See Shanti Budhiya Vesta
Patel v. Nirmala Jayprakash Tiwari, reported in 2010(5)
SCC 104)
77. In Bishundeo Narain v. Seogeni Rai, reported in AIR
1951 SC 280, it was held thus:
24. We turn next to the questions of undue influence
and coercion. Now, it is to be observed that these have
not been separately pleaded. It is true they may overlap
in part in some cases but they are separate and
separable categories in law and must be separately
pleaded. It is also to be observed that no proper
particulars have been furnished. Now, if there is one
rule which is better established than any other, it is
that in cases of fraud, undue influence and coercion,
the parties pleading it must set forth full particulars
and the case can only be decided on the particulars as
laid. There can be no departure from them in evidence.
General allegations are insufficient even to amount to
an averment of fraud of which any Court ought to take
notice,
however, strong the language in which they are couched
may be, and the same applies to undue influence and
coercion. (See Order 6, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil
Procedure)”
Page 11 of 13
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 23:03:16 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6546/2017 ORDER DATED: 11/06/2025
undefined
7.1 In the case of Mohanbhai Maganbhai Patel vs. Miral
Vallabhbhai Surani reported in 2016 JX (Guj) 1290, a
Division Bench of this Court has observed and held that
the particulars about alleged fraud must be stated in
the pleadings. It is further observed that pleading has to
claim a statement in a concise form of material facts on
which the party relies for his claim or defence.
8. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the
plaintiff is invoking Section 17 of the Limitation Act and
is praying for exclusion of time on the ground of fraud.
However, it is required to be noted that fraud as such is
alleged in view of the subsequent development of
transfer of Vessel from one owner to another owner and
there are no allegations and/or pleadings with respect
to fraud at the time of entering into transaction of
supply of Bunker to the Vessel. As observed
hereinabove, the period of limitation would start
running from 29.03.2012 even considering the specific
averments and pleadings in the Plaint. As per Section 9
of the Limitation Act, when once the time has begun to
run, no subsequent disability or inability to institute a
suit or make an application stops it. Therefore, even
considering Section 9 of the Limitation Act, once the
period of limitation has started running from
29.03.2012, any subsequent act or omission on the part
of the defendant on the basis of which some fraud is
alleged, the period of limitation would not be saved
considering Section 17 of the Limitation act, as alleged
or contended.
9. At this stage, it is required to be noted that even
there are no specific averments and/or pleadings in the
Plaint invoking Section 17 of the Limitation Act and
praying for exclusion of the time.
10. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge
has committed any error in rejecting the Plaint under
Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC. We are in complete
agreement with the view taken by the learned Judge
holding that even considering the averments in the
Plaint as they are, the suit clearly barred by law of
limitation. Rejection of the Plaint by the learned Single
Judge is absolutely in consonance with the object and
purpose of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.”
Page 12 of 13
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 23:03:16 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6546/2017 ORDER DATED: 11/06/2025
undefined
6. Thus, from the facts narrated hereinabove, it is
evident that when the provisions of Section 3 of the
Transfer of Property Act and Section 19 of the Evidence
Act are considered in the facts of the case on hand, the
plaintiffs’ suit praying for a declaration to set aside the
sale deed on 02.02.1976 is clearly barred by limitation.
7. In other words, when apparently the suit is
hopelessly time barred, merely alleging fraud without
supporting material could not extend the period of
limitation and make the case of the plaintiffs disputed.
Thus, the plaint of the respondents ought to have been
rejected by the learned trial Court in exercise of powers
under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908. Having failed to do so, I deem it fit to quash and
set aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court.
8. In the premises aforesaid, order dated 03.10.2015
passed by the 6th (Ad-hoc) Additional Civil Judge,
Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad below Ex. 52 in
Regular Civil Suit No. 814 of 2012 is hereby quashed
and set aside. Civil Revision Application is allowed
accordingly. Rule is made absolute.”
9. Resultantly, present petition fails being bereft of merit and
stands dismissed. Notice discharged.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
Page 13 of 13
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 23:03:16 IST 2025
[ad_1]
Source link