NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3811/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 3811 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
SHAKTISINH KRUSHNASIN VALA & 3 other(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SAMIR B GOHIL(5718) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS. VRUNDA C. SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 18/08/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By filing the present Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Applicants herein (Original Accused Nos. 2, 5, 6 and 3) have prayed for quashing and setting aside the FIR being I - C.R. No. 14 of 2014 registered with Tankara Police Station at Morbi for the offences Page 1 of 5 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:34:34 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3811/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34, 114 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. At the outset, learned Advocate Mr. Samir B. Gohil for the Applicants seeks permission to withdraw the present Application as regards the Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 [Original Accused Nos. 2 and 5].
2.1 The permission as prayed for is granted. The Application stands disposed of as withdrawn qua Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 [Original Accused Nos. 2 and 5]. Rule is discharged qua them. Ad-interim relief granted earlier shall stand vacated.
3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of the present Application are such that, on 3.2.2014, the first informant namely Ajaybhai Kishorbhai Shah submitted an application to the concerned Police Station inter alia contending that a land bearing Plot No. 44 Survey No. 232 situated at village Hadala, Taluka Tankara was purchased by his deceased father vide registered sale deed dated 28.12.1989. After his demise, the name of the first informant and the other heirs of the deceased father were entered into the revenue record. Thereafter, Accused No.2, though was aware of the fact that the land in question was purchased by the deceased father of the first informant, executed a registered sale deed in favour of other co-accused and thus an attempt was made to usurp the land belonging to the first informant. The lands of the other witnesses were also tried to be usurped by the Accused by resorting to the forged documents. On the basis of the said Application, the FIR in question came to be lodged against the present Applicants and other co- accused.
4. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Samir B. Gohil appearing for the Applicant Nos. 3 and 4. He submitted that the Applicants herein had merely signed the Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:34:34 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3811/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined sale deed executed by Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 in the capacity of witnesses. The Applicants herein have played no role whatsoever in commission of the offence in question nor the Applicants have ever forged any documents. The Applicants have been falsely implicated in the present offence. He further submitted that the present FIR has been lodged by the first informant on 3.2.2014, whereas the alleged incident has taken place in the year 2012. Thus, the FIR has been lodged after considerably long time from the date of the alleged incident. He further submitted that the first informant had also filed Civil Suit challenging the sale deed executed in favour of the Applicant Nos. 1 and 2. The said Suit was dismissed for non-prosecution as nobody had appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff. Thus, the present FIR is nothing but an afterthought and a pressure-in-tactic employed by the first informant. He therefore submitted to allow the present Application.
5. The Application is opposed by learned APP Ms. Vrunda C. Shah appearing for the Respondent - State. She submitted that the Applicants were very well aware of the fact that the land in question was already sold to the father of the first informant and despite the said knowledge, a sale deed came to be executed in favour of Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 by Accused No.1 and the present Applicants were also aware about the said fact, and despite the same, have signed the sale deed in question as witnesses. Thus, there is a strong prima facie case against the present Applicants for having committed the offence in question. She therefore submitted to dismiss the present Application.
6. Learned Advocate Mr. N.L. Gupta appearing for learned Advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli appearing for Respondent No.2 has also opposed the present Application inter alia contending that the Applicants were very much aware about the fact that the first informant and his other family members were the lawful owners of the land in question and despite the same they had signed the Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:34:34 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3811/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined documents as witnesses. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present Application.
7. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record.
8. Upon perusal of the FIR as it is, there are no allegations levelled against the present Applicant Nos. 3 and 4. No specific role whatsoever has been attributed to both the aforesaid Applicants in the FIR. It is not even alleged in the FIR against the present Applicants that that any property was entrusted to them, which had been dishonestly misappropriated by them, nor is it the case in the FIR that the Applicants herein had deceived the first informant or any of his family members. The FIR is also silent as regards any document having been forged by the present Applicants for commission of the offence in question. Under the circumstances, the ingredients for the offence alleged in the FIR are absent so far as the Applicant Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned.
9. Upon perusal of the record, more particularly, the sale deed dated 26.4.2012, it appears that the Applicants herein had merely signed the said sale deed in question in their capacity as witnesses. Except this, no other material is available on record implicating the present Applicants in the offrence in question. The ingredients for the offences alleged in the FIR are not made out against the present Applicant Nos. 3 and 4. In the absence of any averments as regards the role played by the present Applicants in commission of the offence in question, so also any material in that regard, this Court is of the view that continuing with the present proceedings, arising out of the present FIR against the present Applicants would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the present Application deserves to be allowed in part, and hence the same is hereby allowed qua Applicant Nos. 3 and 4 [Original Accused Nos. 6 and 3]. The FIR being I - C.R. No. 14 of 2014 registered with Tankara Taluka Police Station at Morbi, District Rajkot for the offences punishable under Page 4 of 5 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:34:34 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3811/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34, 114 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and set aside qua Applicant Nos. 3 and 4 [Original Accused Nos. 6 and 3]. Rule is made absolute qua Applicants Nos. 3 and 4.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J) J.N.W Page 5 of 5 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:34:34 IST 2023