Dishonest Conduct and Non-Compliance with Bail Undertakings Preclude Exercise of Inherent Powers for Quashing FIR.

The applicant sought to quash an FIR registered under the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020. The complainant alleged that in December 2020, the applicant and her husband requested temporary accommodation on the upper floor of the complainant’s house for 15 days, claiming they were doctors awaiting their own home registration.

Despite continuous requests for three years, the applicant refused to vacate and allegedly issued threats.

The applicant argued the occupation was based on a rental agreement and that she was being targeted due to an inter-caste marriage.

Procedural history shows the applicant was previously granted bail on the condition she vacate the premises, but her bail was later cancelled for non-compliance and making false declarations to the court.

Whether the allegations in the FIR and the conduct of the applicant warrant the quashing of the criminal proceedings under the court's inherent powers.

The court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the inherent powers of the High Court (formerly Section 482 CrPC).

It also relied on the specialized provisions of Sections 4(3) and 5(c) of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020, which criminalize the unauthorized occupation of land.

The court adhered to the foundational principles for quashing FIRs established in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), which limit such interference to cases where no offense is disclosed or the process is an abuse of law.

The court found that the prima facie ingredients of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act were satisfied as the applicant remained in possession of the property without legal authorization despite the lapse of the permitted period.

The applicant failed to provide any documentary evidence to substantiate her defense of a rental agreement or deposit payment.

The court placed significant weight on the applicant's conduct, noting that she had previously misled the court by filing false undertakings to vacate the property to secure bail, failed to comply with bail conditions, and had even absconded for 22 days after being granted temporary relief.

Given these factors, the court determined that the case did not meet the Bhajan Lal criteria for quashing, as the investigation was ongoing and the allegations required a full trial.

It held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS should not be exercised when the applicant has displayed a lack of bonafides, misled the court, and where the allegations prima facie constitute an offense under the Land Grabbing Act.