R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET

ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 6114 of 2021

With

CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2025

In R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 6114 of 2021

With

R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3135 of 2021

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

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

Approved for Reporting Yes No

√

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

BHABHLUBHAI NAGBHAI VARU & ANR.

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2

CHINTAN K GANDHI(8600) for the Respondent(s) No. 2

MR. SANDIP A. KAPADIYA(17911) for the Respondent(s) No. 2

MR ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

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

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

Date : 20/07/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

PRELUDE:

1.As both these applications arise out of the same FIR, they are

Page 1 of 22

R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026

are being decided by this common judgment and order.

2.By these applications, the applicants are before this Court

praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR being

C.R. No. 11193027200953 of 2020, registered on 18.08.2020 with

Khambha Police Station, District Amreli, for the offences

punishable under Sections 384, 386, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as well as Section 40, 42(A) and

42(D)of the Gujarat Money Lending Act.

FACTUAL MATRIX :

2.The case, as narrated in the FIR, is to the effect that:

2.1Original Complainant namely Jentibhai Raghavbhai

Sodvadiya has inherited agricultural land from his ancestors. One

parcel of land is recorded under Revenue Account No. 33, Survey

No. 30/1, measuring 2 Hectare, 83 Are, and 28 Square Metre,

situated within the revenue limits of Mota Sakdiya village.

Another parcel of agricultural land is recorded under Revenue

Account No. 722, Survey No. 141, measuring 1 Hectare, 14 Are,

and 33 Square Metre, situated within the revenue limits of Dedan

village.

2.2Approximately two years ago, his son Prayagbhai intended

to go abroad, and he also required funds for agricultural

operations. Since he needed approximately Rs.6,00,000/-, he

Page 2 of 22

R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026

approached his friend, Isubkhan Hasan Khan Pathan, a resident of

Dedan, and discussed his financial requirement with him.

Thereupon, his friend Isubkhan informed him that there was a

finance office at Dedan operated by Pratapbhai Nagbhai Varu,

who used to lend money. On a suggestion being made by

Isubkhan, they both visited the office of Pratapbhai Nagbhai Varu,

a resident of Nageshri, located at Dedan. It is stated in the FIR that

during their meeting, Pratapbhai informed that his brother,

Bhabhlubhai Nagbhai Varu, a resident of Gokulnagar, Jafrabad

Road, Rajula, who was a Teacher, would provide with a loan on

interest, pursuant to which he personally went to Rajula to meet

Bhabhlubhai Nagbhai Varu.

2.3It is further stated in the FIR that the complainant explained

his financial requirement to Bhabhlubhai, whereupon, he asked

him to execute an Agreement to Sell (Banakhat) without

possession in respect of his agricultural land towards Security for

the loan, and accordingly, he would lend him the money on

interest, to which, complainant agreed.

2.4Thereafter, Bhabhlubhai informed him that he would call

him the following day and instructed him to come to the

Mamlatdar Office at Khambha, where they would execute the

Agreement to Sell (Banakhat). As the complainant was in urgent

need of money, he went to Khambha on 02.01.2018. On that day,

Agreement to Sell (Banakhat) in respect of his agricultural land

Page 3 of 22

R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026

bearing Survey No. 30/1 came to be executed. After the execution

of the Banakhat, Bhabhlubhai handed over a Cheque No. 003092

for Rs.4,50,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank, Rajula Branch. Since he

actually required a loan of Rs.5,00,000/-, Bhabhlubhai deducted

Rs.50,000 in advance towards two months' interest at the rate of

5%, and consequently issued him a cheque for only Rs.4,50,000.

Thereafter, as the complainant required additional funds, he once

again approached Bhabhlubhai seeking another loan. At that time,

Bhabhlubhai told him that if he required a further loan of

Rs.1,50,000/-, he should execute another Agreement to Sell

(Banakhat), in the same manner as before, in respect of his

agricultural land situated within the revenue limits of Dedan

village. Accordingly, on 06.04.2018, the complainant executed an

Agreement to Sell (Banakhat) in favour of Bhabhlubhai for the

agricultural land bearing Survey No. 141, situated within the

revenue limits of Dedan village. Upon execution of the said

Banakhat, Bhabhlubhai paid him Rs.50,000/-.

2.5Approximately eight months later, the complainant received

a telephone call from Bhabhlubhai Nagbhai Varu informing that

he owed him Rs.5,50,000/- and demanded interest at the rate of

10% on the said amount, to which, the complainant replied that

the amount of interest he was demanding was excessive and that

he was not in a position to pay such a high rate of interest. Upon

hearing this, Bhabhlubhai got agitated and started hurling filthy

abuses and threatened to kill him and family if his money is not

Page 4 of 22

R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026

repaid. He further warned him that until the money is repaid, he

would not allow him to cultivate or even enter his agricultural

fields.

2.6Thereafter, the complainant arranged through a commission

agent (broker) to sell the onion crop grown on his land at the

Mahuva Marketing Yard. When Bhabhlubhai came to know about

this, Bhabhlubhai Nagbhai Varu, Pratapbhai Nagbhai Varu, and

Nareshbhai Chauhan, a Teacher at Dhareshwar Primary School, all

three of them rushed to his residence at around 6:30 p.m. and

began abusing and intimidating him. They told him that the sale

bill for his onion crop should be transferred into the name of

Bhabhlubhai, and they compelled him to do so by force. Under the

pressure, the complainant contacted the commission agent and

arranged for the Gate Pass issued by the Mahuva Marketing Yard

as well as the sale invoice (bill) for his onion crop to be issued in

the name of Bhabhlubhai. Thereafter, Bhabhlubhai himself

collected the sale proceeds directly. He does not know the amount

for which the bill was settled.

2.7Thereafter, three of them told the complainant that if he ever

went to his orchard/farm situated within the revenue limits of

Mota Sakdiya village again, they would kill him. They further

warned him that until he repaid money, he would not be allowed

to enter or cultivate his agricultural land, and that they would

remain in possession of the said land till then. Since that time,

Page 5 of 22

R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026

Pratapbhai is in possession of agricultural land situated at Mota

Sakdiya village. It is further alleged that, thereafter, also the

above-mentioned three persons repeatedly contacted him in

person as well as over the telephone, making aggressive demands

for payment of interest and threatening and intimidating the

complainant. On one occasion, Bhabhlubhai met him at Dedan

village and told him that the total amount payable by him,

including interest on the money he had lent, had increased to

Rs.27,50,000/-. He further stated that if he was unable to pay the

said amount, he should execute a registered sale deed of his

agricultural land in his favour. Thereafter, the complainant

returned home and left for Surat. The complainant became

extremely frightened because of the conduct and threats of these

persons, and as a result, complainant kept moving from place to

place to avoid them. Subsequently, complainant’s friend,

Rameshbhai Madhubhai Devani, a resident of Mota Sakdiya, came

to know about the entire incident. He encouraged the complainant

and gave him the courage to approach the authorities. Thus, on the

said fact, the FIR in question has been lodged.

SUBMISSIONS:

3.Heard, learned advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli, for the

applicants in Criminal Misc. Application No. 6114 of 2021 with

Criminal Misc. Application No. 2 of 2025 and learned advocate Mr.

Rohan Majmudar, learned advocate for the applicant in Criminal

Misc. Application No. 3135 of 2021 and learned Additional Public

Page 6 of 22

R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026

Prosecutor Mr. Rohan Shah for the respondent – State and learned

advocate Mr. Sandip Kapadiya for the respondent - de facto

complainant.

3.1The learned advocates for the applicants, at the outset,

submitted that the FIR suffers from an inordinate and unexplained

delay of nearly two years. The original complainant has failed to

furnish any plausible or satisfactory explanation for such an

extraordinary delay, which casts serious doubt on the

genuineness, credibility, and bona fides of the allegations levelled

against the applicants.

3.2 The learned advocates for the applicants further submitted

that the investigation has already been concluded and the Charge-

sheet has been filed before the competent Court.

3.3The learned advocates for the applicants submitted that

entire controversy emanates from an Agreement to Sell executed

between the applicant and respondent No. 2. The allegations, even

if accepted at their face value, disclose a dispute purely of a civil

nature. The respondent No. 2 has, with an oblique motive to exert

undue pressure and to secure a collateral advantage, sought to

give a criminal colour to a civil transaction. Such misuse of the

criminal process is impermissible in law and amounts to an abuse

of the process of the Court.

Page 7 of 22

R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026

3.4The learned advocates for the applicants further submitted

that a plain reading of the FIR, does not disclose the essential

ingredients constituting the offences punishable under Sections

384 and 386 of the IPC, nor does it make out any offence under the

applicable provisions of the Money Lending Act. The allegations

are vague, omnibus, and devoid of the necessary factual

foundation to attract the aforesaid penal provisions. Consequently,

the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the applicants

would be wholly unjustified and unsustainable in law.

3.5The learned advocates for the applicants would further

submit that the applicant No. 1 has also filed Regular Civil Suit

No. 44 of 2022 against the de facto complainant before the Court of

learned Principal Civil Judge, Khambha for specific performance

of Agreement to Sell, executed for land bearing Survey No. 30/1 of

Village: Mota Sarakadiya, Taluka: Khambha, District: Amreli,

wherein, vide order dated 03.10.2023 passed below Exh. 5, the

learned Principal Civil Judge, Khambha has partly allowed the

injunction application and restrained the present informant not to

create any charge, encumbrance or deal with land in question in

any manner. So far as applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.

3135 of 2021, it is stated that the applicant therein has nothing to

do with the transaction in question and the allegations, as made in

the FIR, are considered qua him, save and except the bald

allegations that he accompanied the main accused to the home of

the complainant and all the three abused and threatened the

Page 8 of 22

R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026

complainant and thereafter, also threatened on phone, no other

allegations are made against him. In the circumstances, he

reiterated that so far as offence punishable under Sections 384 and

386 of the IPC and under the Gujarat Money Lending Act are

concerned, the applicant has nothing to do with and that, the

ingredients of the said offences are not satisfied qua him. Whereas,

offence punishable under Section 506(2) IPC is also not attracted

inasmuch as, there is no intention on the part of this applicant to

cause any alarm to the complainant and that, mere expression of

any word, allegedly spoken by him, would not amount to criminal

intimidation. Further, he stated that the applicant has no

antecedents. In support, the learned advocate has relied upon

decisions of the coordinate Bench in i) Nalinbhai Amirali

Bhanvadiya v. State of Gujarat, 2019(0) AIJEL-HC 242193 and ii)

Pravinbhai Gordhanbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2019 (0)

AIJEL-HC 240972.

3.6The learned advocates would further submit that the de facto

complainant also filed an application below Exh. 44 under Order 7

Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (CPC) which came

to be dismissed by the learned Principal Judge on 11.06.2024.

3.7The learned advocates would lastly submit that the present

FIR filed against the applicants is nothing but an abuse of process

of law, to harass the present applicants and thus, argued to allow

the present applications.

Page 9 of 22

R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026

4.Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

respondent - State and learned advocate Mr. Sandip Kapadiya for

the de facto complainant would submit that:

4.1That since the Charge-sheet has been filed, the applicants

have an alternative efficacious remedy of preferring a discharge

application, since the scope of exercising powers under Section 482

of the CrPC is very narrow. Having made a prima facie case, the

present applications deserve to be dismissed.

4.2It is further submitted that the contention raised by the

learned advocate for the applicants requires a full-fledged trial and

can be tested only on the basis of the evidence led before the trial.

4.3The learned advocates for the respondents further submits

that the applicants are the persons having criminal antecedents

involving offences of a similar nature, thereby indicating a

discernible modus operandi. It is further contended that such

antecedents, coupled with the material collected during the course

of investigation, prima facie substantiate the allegations levelled

against the applicants and, therefore, no case is made out for the

exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the

impugned FIR or the consequential criminal proceedings.

FINDINGS:

5.Heard, the learned advocates for the respective parties and

Page 10 of 22

R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026

perused the material on record.

5.1At the outset, it would be apt to refer to a decision in case of

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, wherein, the

Hon’ble Apex 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 clip any abuse of the process of Court. The

relevant portion of Paragraph 102 of the said judgment is extracted

below:

“(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 ins the F.I.R. and other materials, if

any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence,

justifying an investigation by police officers under S.156(1) of the

Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of

S.155(2) of the code.

(3) Where, the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or

complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not

disclose the commission of any offence and make out the case

against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a

cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no

investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a

Magistrate as contemplated under S.155(2) of the Code.

(5) Whether, the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are

Page 11 of 22

R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026

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/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

malafide 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."

5.2The applicants have preferred these applications under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC),

seeking the quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) and the

consequential Charge-sheet pending before the competent Court.

The dispute originates from financial transactions where the

original complainant executed two Agreements to Sell (Banakhat)

concerning his ancestral agricultural lands as security for loans

advanced by the applicant. While the Complainant alleges

extortion, criminal intimidation, and forcible dispossession under

the guise of an illegal money-lending operation, the applicants

contend that the matter is a purely civil contractual dispute that

has been deliberately given a criminal colour to bypass binding

civil obligations.

Page 12 of 22

R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026

5.3POINTS OF CONTENTION :

5.3.1Commercial/Civil Transaction vs. Criminal Offence:

i)Whether the controversy, rooted in executed

Agreements to Sell and financial advances, is purely civil in

nature, rendering criminal prosecution an abuse of the

process of law.

5.3.2Impact of Pre-existing and Subsisting Civil Court Orders:

ii)Whether the institution of a Regular Civil Suit and the

protection granted by a competent Civil Court alter the

maintainability of the concurrent criminal proceedings.

5.3.3Sustainment of Penal Ingredients:

iii)Whether the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR and

Charge-sheet fulfil the essential legal ingredients required to

constitute offences under Sections 384 and 386 of the Indian

Penal Code (IPC) and the Money-Lending Act.

5.3.4Effect of Inordinate and Unexplained Delay:

iv)Whether a two-year delay in registering the FIR,

viewed in juxtaposition with parallel civil developments,

invalidates the bona fides of the criminal prosecution.

Page 13 of 22

R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026

6.ANALYSIS AND REASONING :

6.1To determine whether the criminal proceedings ought to be

quashed, this Court must examine the structural framework of the

dispute against the bedrock principles governing Section 482 of the

CrPC.

a)The Civil Character of the Transaction and Criminal

Cloaking:

6.1.1The record reveals that the interaction between the parties

strictly initiated as a commercial transaction. The Complainant

sought funds for his son’s foreign travel and agricultural

operations, voluntarily executing an Agreement to Sell (Banakhat)

on 02.01.2018, for Survey No. 30/1, receiving a cheque of

Rs.4,50,000/-. He subsequently executed a second Banakhat on

06.04.2018 for Survey No. 141, receiving an additional Rs.50,000/-.

6.1.2The Apex Court in Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand

(2013) 11 SCC 673 held that:

" Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends

upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential

ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged

by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may

also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether

a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of

criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available

and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High

Court should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent

abuse of process of court."

Page 14 of 22

R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026

6.1.3Similarly, in G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. (2000) 2 SCC 636,

the Apex Court observed that “Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the

Code has to be exercised with a great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction

High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. It is to be seen if a

matter, which is essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak of

criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other

remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to

exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious

matter……..”.

6.1.4In the present case, the primary relationship between the

parties is bound by written property agreements and formal

banking transactions. The subsequent allegations of coercion,

when analyzed against the admitted execution of documents

months apart, reveal an attempt to invalidate the legal efficacy of

the Banakhats through criminal recourse. The dispute is

fundamentally a contractual and financial disagreement regarding

the repayment of advanced sums and the enforcement of land

agreements, which belongs strictly to civil jurisprudence.

b)Primacy of Ongoing Civil Adjudication:

6.2It is an uncontroverted fact that the applicant No. 1 instituted

Regular Civil Suit No. 44 of 2022 before the Principal Civil Judge,

Khambha, seeking specific performance of the Agreement to Sell

for the Mota Sakdiya village land. Crucially, on 03.10.2023, the

Page 15 of 22

R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026

competent Civil Court passed an order below Exh. 5, partly

allowing an injunction and restraining the complainant from

creating any third-party charges or dealing with the land.

Furthermore, the complainant's application to reject the plaint

under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC was formally dismissed by

the Civil Court on 11.06.2024.

6.2.1The continuation of criminal proceedings on the exact same

subject matter for which a competent Civil Court is actively

adjudicating the validity, possession, and specific performance of

the Banakhat, allowing a parallel criminal prosecution to evaluate

the same transactional facts creates an impermissible overlap. The

criminal process cannot be utilized to frustrate an interim

injunction issued by a civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

c)Absence of Essential Penal Ingredients:

6.3A plain reading of the FIR and Charge-sheet fails to establish

the necessary elements of extortion under Sections 384 and 386 of

the IPC. The statutory definition of extortion requires that the

accused must dishonestly induce a person under fear of injury to

deliver property. Here, the delivery of money via cheque and the

execution of the Banakhats were completed voluntarily in 2018.

The subsequent escalation and verbal altercations described in the

FIR relate to the recovery of the advanced loan and accrued

interest. While the high rate of interest demanded may violate the

Page 16 of 22

R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026

regulatory provisions of money-lending laws it does not

automatically transmute a financial default or aggressive recovery

into the criminal offence of extortion.

6.3.1Section 386 of the IPC relates to extortion by putting a person

in fear of death or grievous hurt. Section 386 of the IPC runs as

follows:—

“Section 386. Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or

grievous hurt. —Whoever commits extortion by putting any

person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any

other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for

a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to

fine.”

6.3.2“Extortion” has been defined in Section 383 of the IPC as

follows:

“Section 383. Extortion.—Whoever intentionally puts any person

in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby

dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any

person any property or valuable security or anything signed or

sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits

extortion.

Illustrations:

(a) A threatens to publish a defamatory libel concerning Z unless Z

gives him money. He thus induces Z to give him money. A has

committed extortion.

(b) A threatens Z that he will keep Z's child in wrongful

confinement, unless Z will sign and deliver to A a promissory note

binding Z to pay certain monies to A. Z sings and delivers the

Page 17 of 22

R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026

note. A has committed extortion.

(c) A threatens to send club-men to plough up Z's field unless Z

will sign and deliver to B a bond binding Z under a penalty to

deliver certain produce to B, and thereby induces Z to sign and

deliver the bond. A has committed extortion.

(d) A, by putting Z in fear of grievous hurt, dishonestly induces Z

to sign or affix his seal to a blank paper and deliver it to A. Z sings

and delivers the paper to A. Here, as the paper so signed may be

converted into a valuable security. A has committed extortion.”

6.3.3So the necessary ingredients of the offence of extortion are

that the victim must be induced to deliver to any person any

property or valuable security, etc. Thus, the delivery of the

property must be with consent which has been obtained by

putting the person in fear of any injury. In contrast to theft, in

extortion there is an element of consent, of course, obtained by

putting the victim in fear of injury. In extortion, the will of the

victim has to be overpowered by putting him or her in fear of

injury. Forcibly taking any property will not come under this

definition. It has to be shown that the person was induced to part

with the property by putting him in fear of injury. Nowhere the

first informant has stated that out of fear, he executed Banakhats in

favour of the accused persons. To put it in other words, there is

nothing to indicate that there was actual delivery of possession of

property by the person put in fear. In the absence of anything to

even remotely suggest that the first informant parted with his

property after being put to fear of any injury, no offence under

Section 386 of the IPC can be said to have been made out.

Page 18 of 22

R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026

6.3.4So far as Sections 504 and 506(2) of the IPC are concerned,

Section 504 IPC comprises of the following ingredients viz. (a)

intentional insult, (b) the insult must be such as to give

provocation to the person insulted, and (c) the accused must

intend or know that such provocation would cause another to

break the public peace or to commit any other offence. Further, in

view of definitions of Criminal Intimidation under Section 503 of

the IPC, in order to make out an offence of Criminal Intimidation,

punishable under Section 506(2) of the IPC, that it must be

established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the

complainant and that, mere threats given by the accused, without

any intention to cause alarm to the complainant, would not

constitute the offence of Criminal Intimidation. In the deceased

relied upon by the learned advocate for the applicant of the

coordinate Bench in Nalinbhai Amirali Bhanvadiya (supra), it is

observed that, it is settled proposition of law that mere threats

given by accused not with an intention to cause alarm to the

complainant would not constitute offence of criminal intimidation.

Thus, the said basic ingredients and predominant requirement to

establish or to constitute an offence punishable under Sections 504

and 506(2) of the IPC regarding intentional insult with intention to

provoke breach of peace and the intention to cause alarm to the

complainant by such threat, are conspicuously absent in the

present case.

6.3.5As far as State's assertion that the applicants possess a

Page 19 of 22

R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026

verified history of similar criminal antecedents, it is worth noting

that all previous FIR have quashed by consent of the respective

informants. Thus, based on vague and omnibus allegations in the

FIR cannot form the factual foundation required to sustain a

criminal trial.

6.3.6For offence under the Money lenders Act except for the

assertion of Rs.50,000/- being taken in advance while parting with

the money by accused and entering in to Banakhat as interest @ 5%

for two months in advance which is falsified from the recitals of

registered Banakhat there is only statement of agent with regard to

Rs.35,000/- worth onion being transferred in the name of accused.

Except this amount of Rs.35,000/-, there is no evidence worth the

name of the informant having paid a single rupee towards interest

to the accused persons either in cash or through banking channel

or UPI which makes the averments attracting penal provisions of

Money Lender Act unacceptable.

d)Unexplained Delay and Lack of Bona Fides:

6.4The applicants have demonstrated that the FIR suffers from

an extraordinary delay of nearly two years from the date of the

alleged initial threats. In Bhajan La's case, the Supreme Court

established that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly

attended with mala fides or maliciously instituted with an oblique

motive for wreaking vengeance, the High Court, under Section

Page 20 of 22

R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026

482, ought to intervene to prevent the abuse of the process of any

Court.

6.4.1The timeline demonstrates that the criminal machinery was

set in motion only after the contractual relations broke down and

civil remedies were actively pursued. The delay, when juxtaposed

with the parallel civil litigation, indicates that the criminal

complaint was designed as a retaliatory defence mechanism to

evade the specific performance of the executed property contracts.

7.SUMMING UP :

7.1On evaluation of the facts on hand, this Court finds that the

essential character of the dispute between the parties is purely civil

and contractual. The invocation of criminal provisions under

Sections 384 and 386 of the IPC represents a clear instance of a civil

transaction being cloaked in criminality to gain an unfair

advantage in an active property dispute. Given that the competent

Civil Court has already seized the matter, granted injunctive relief,

and affirmed the maintainability of the suit by dismissing the

Order 7 Rule 11 application, the continuation of the criminal

prosecution would amount to a gross abuse of the process of law.

From the entire reading of the papers of the Charge-sheet as well

as the FIR, the present case would squarely fall within parameters

(1), (3), (5), and (7) laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan La's

case (supra).

Page 21 of 22

R/CR.MA/6114/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026

8.CONCLUSION :

8.1Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 6114 of 2021 and 3135 of

2021 are allowed. The First Information Report registered against

the applicants, referred in Paragraph 2 above, Charge-sheet and all

consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby

quashed and set aside qua the applicants. Rule is made absolute,

accordingly.

8.2Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed.

8.3Direct service is permitted.

[ P. M. Raval, J. ]

mahendra+hiren/11tss20726+

Page 22 of 22