Gujarat High Court
Bhaveshbhai Nareschandra Amin vs State Of Gujarat on 4 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 23/07/2025
Pronounced On : 04/08/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 10988 of 2013
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 11060 of 2013
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 11062 of 2013
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 15977 of 2013
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (MODIFICATION/DELETION OF
CONDITION) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 15977 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
BHAVESHBHAI NARESCHANDRA AMIN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance in Cr.M.A.No.10988 of 2013:
MR TEJAS BAROT, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR TATTVAM K PATEL(5455)
for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARSH A PRAJAPATI(11941) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR NARENDRA L JAIN(5647) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR JAY MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
Appearance in Cr.M.A.No.11060 of 2013 AND Cr.M.A.No.11062 of 2013:
MR TATTVAM K PATEL(5455) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARSH A PRAJAPATI(11941) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR NARENDRA L JAIN(5647) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR JAY MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
Appearance in Cr.M.A.No.15977 of 2013:
MR HRIDAY BUCH for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARSH A PRAJAPATI(11941) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR NARENDRA L JAIN(5647) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR JAY MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 38
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined
1. In all four petitions are filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. questioning filing of FIR being C.R.No.I-12 of 2013 registered with DCB Crime Police Station, Vadodara. Captioned petitions involve same facts and issue in dispute, all of them since tagged, with the consent of learned advocates for both the sides, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. Criminal Misc. Application No.10988 of 2013 is treated as lead matter.
3. Facts of the case are as under :-
3.1. That the complaint revolves around land bearing S.No.60 block No.51 admeasuring 6677 sq.mtr. of village Khanpur, Tal.
District Vadodara. That present complainant was the owner of the land in question. That on 06.06.1989, present complainant had purchased the land in question by way of registered sale deed from one Mansukhlal Gangaram Maheta. That thereafter, on 11.01.2006, present complainant executed one notarized power of attorney in favour of one Ravishanker Bhanvarlal Sharma giving all powers including power to execute registered Page 2 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined sale deed. That on 06.05.2009, said power of attorney holder of present complainant executed registered sale deed in favour of present applicant of the land in question. That thereafter, present applicant published public notice seeking title certificate qua the land question. That thereafter, present complainant objected to the issuance of title clearance certificate saying that the power of attorney dated 11.01.2006 was not genuine and that Ravishanker Bhanvarlal Sharma had created bogus power of attorney. Having received said objection from present complainant, present applicant filed criminal complaint on 28.07.2009 against Ravishanker Bhanvarlal Sharma. 3.2. That thereafter entry No.1216 was posted on 09.05.2009 recording registered sale deed in favour of present applicant. Against the certification of said entry, objections were raised by present complainant resulting into registration of RTS Case No.124/09. That in the said case, on an order was passed 16.12.2009 by Mamlatdar, Vadodara ordering certification of entry No.1216. It is to be noted here that the said order passed by Mamlatdar, Vadodara was thereafter challenged by present complainant before the Dy. Collector by filing RTS Appeal No.71/10 wherein also the said Appeal was rejected by the Dy. Page 3 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined Collector against which present complainant has filed Revision application before Collector, Vadodara which is pending. 3.3. That thereafter, on 01.09.2009, Special Civil Suit No.509 of 2009 came to be filed by present complainant against present applicant seeking cancellation of registered sale deed dated 06.05.2009. It is to be noted here that no relief is granted in favour of present complainant in the said Civil Suit till date. That thereafter on 17.03.2010 confirmation deed came to be executed by present complainant in favour of present applicant whereby present complainant has accepted the registered sale deed executed favour of present applicant.
3.4. That thereafter, on 13.05.2010 a Criminal complaint was submitted by complainant against said Ravishanker Bhanvarlal Sharma before the Superintendent of Police, Vadodara. It is to be noted here that in the said complaint present applicant is shown as witness of present complainant. Not only that, but, in the said complaint, it is clearly stated by present complainant that even present applicant is duped by said Ravishanker Bhanvarlal Sharma and that huge amount is being taken by said Ravishanker Bhanvarlal Sharma for the land in question. That Page 4 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined pursuant to said complaint 27.05.2010, statement of an present complainant was recorded by police, wherein it is the say of present complainant that settlement is arrived at between present complainant and present applicant. 3.5. That thereafter, second complaint was filed by present complainant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vadodara vide No.07 of 2010. In the said complaint also, present applicant is shown as witness and it accepted by present complainant that confirmation deed is executed by present complainant in favour of present applicant. That pursuant to order passed by learned JMFC, Vadodara on 13.08.2010, detailed investigation was carried by Police and report is submitted before the Court. Perusal of report indicates that complaint filed by complainant is found to be incorrect and it is found to be containing false particulars. 3.6. That thereafter, on 07.05.2012, Special Civil Suit No.306/12 came to be filed by Ravishanker Bhanvarlal Sharma against present applicant seeking cancellation of registered Hence, sale deed dated 06.05.2009. it is absolutely clear that Ravishanker Bhanvarlal Sharma and complainant are acting in Page 5 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined collusion with and present each other. It is to be noted here that for the land in question other Civil Suits 1.e. Regular Civil Suit No.44/09 and Special Civil Suit No.67/09 are also pending wherein present complainant is defendant whereas one Budhabhai Shankarbhai Mali is plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.44/09. One Sureshbhai Chandrakant Patel and Ravi Murlidhar Jajodiya are plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No.66/09. 3.7. Thereafter, impugned complaint came to be filed on 05.07.2013. Hence, present petitions.
4. I have heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.Tejas Barot assisted by learned advocate Mr.Tattvam Patel in Criminal Misc. Application No.10988 of 2013 for petitioner, learned advocate Mr.Tattvam Patel in Criminal Misc. Application No.11060 of 2013 and Criminal Misc.Application No.11062 of 2013 for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr.Hriday Buch in Criminal Misc. Application No.15977 of 2013 for the petitioner. Learned advocate Mr.Narendra Jain representing respondent no.2 in all the matters has been heard. Learned APP Mr.Jay Mehta for respondent State is also heard.
Submissions in Criminal Misc. Application No.10988 of 2013 Page 6 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined
5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Tejas Barot for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner is bona fide purchaser of disputed land. He would further submit that on plain reading of FIR, it contemplates that it is essentially against alleged power of attorney - Ravishankar Sharma. FIR does not disclose any allegations against the petitioner for commission of alleged offence. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Barot would submit that FIR in question was filed on 05.07.2013. He would submit that prior to filing of said FIR, the petitioner tendered application before the Collector, Vadodara on 28.07.2009 raising contention that he has been cheated by Mr.Ravishankar Sharma as Ravishankar Sharma was not holding genuine power of attorney of the complainant and yet he has sold the disputed property to the petitioner and obtained huge consideration as sale consideration is in his name. He would refer to Annexure E and submit that since application was filed by the petitioner much prior to filing of the FIR, it shows that the petitioner was bona fide and even he has been cheated by Ravishankar Sharma. 5.1. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Tejas Barot would submit that complainant has also filed complaint before the Commissioner of Page 7 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined Police,Vadodara alleging that Mr.Ravishankar Sharma has forged power of attorney and presented said power of attorney as genuine depicting relationship of complainant and Ravishankar Sharma, whereby, he was authorized to execute sale deed. This complaint was filed solely against Mr.Ravishankar Sharma on 13.05.2010 (Page No.122). Learned Senior Advocate would submit that in that complaint, the petitioner was shown as witness of complainant. He would further submit that apart from that, complainant lodged private complaint before learned JMFC again alleging Ravishankar Sharma as sole accused for the offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 (Annexure M - Page No.145). This complaint is filed on 13.08.2010 and in this complaint, the petitioner is first time arraigned as accused. Two complaints filed by the complainant prior to filing of FIR lays identical averments and allegations only against Ravishankar Sharma and not against the petitioner. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that filing of previous two complaints is suppressed by the complainant while filing FIR in question. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that since complaint is suffering from principle of suppression of facts, where it clearly demonstrate / establish that even according to the complainant, the petitioner is at the most witness and was victim of fraudulent Page 8 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined transaction taken at the instance of Ravishankar Sharma, FIR qua petitioner deserves consideration.
5.2. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Barot referring to Annexure J
- confirmation deed executed between complainant and petitioner would submit that by this confirmation deed, the complainant has ratified sale deed executed on alleged forged power of attorney. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that even dispute was fought on civil side, in all more than one suits are filed. Firstly, suit for specific performance filed by the previous agreement to sale holder against the complainant and petitioner. However, said suit is dismissed. Another suits are filed to cancel sale deed as well as confirmation deed. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Barot would further submit that complainant succeeded in getting relief and sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner was cancelled believing that power of attorney being forged, did not pass any title in favour of the petitioner, so also confirmation deed was cancelled by competent Court. He would submit that challenge to judgment and decree passed by competent Court cancelling sale deed as well confirmation deed is made by way of First Appeal before the District Court and another before this Court. He would submit Page 9 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined that in former First Appeal being 57 of 2013, learned Additional District Judge passed order below Exh.5 and directed both the parties to maintain status quo. Said order was passed on the strength of joint purshis tendered by petitioner and complainant. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Barot would submit that in First Appeal No.2775 of 2023 filed before this Court, challenging judgment and decree passed by the competent Court cancelling sale deed, in Civil Application No.1 of 2023, Division Bench of this Court on 03.02.2025 granted stay on the submission that since value of land is Rs. 2.5 crores petitioner herein be directed to deposit the same. He would further submit that said amount has been deposited in Registry of this Court vide Demand Draft. Registry has issued receipt on 11.03.2025. 5.3. In aforesaid chequred facts, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Barot would submit that complainant prior to lodging of questioned FIR lodged different two complaints in same process also confirmed that the petitioner is witness. Further confirmation deed on record though has been cancelled by competent Court, adjudication of which is pending before first appellate Court as also that cancellation of confirmation deed is also noticed in order passed by Division Bench of this Court Page 10 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined confirming and ratifiing sale of disputed land. All these facts indicate that the petitioner is bona fide purchaser and even he has been cheated by Ravishankar Bhanwarlal Sharma. The petitioner has not created any document called to be forged document and presented the same as genuine document. The document being sale deed in favour of the petitioner cannot be said to be forged document as it does not attract definition of forgery. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Barot relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim v/s. State of Bihar [(2009) 8 SCC 751] to buttress his contention.
5.4. In premise of aforesaid arguments, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Barot would submit that the petitioner has good case. FIR on its plain reading does not refer to any allegations against the petitioner which allege that he is indulged in creating forged and fabricated documents.
5.5. Upon above submissions, it is submitted to allow the petition and quash the FIR qua the petitioner. Page 11 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined Submission in Criminal Misc. Application No.11060 of 2013 and Criminal Misc. Application No.11062 of 2013.
6. Learned advocate Mr.Tatvam Patel appearing for the petitioners would submit that role of the petitioners is limited ie. being witness to the sale deed executed by Ravishankar Sharma in favour of Bhaveshbhai Amin qua disputed land. Apart from that no other role is attributed against the petitioners. Power of attorney according to complainant is forged but the petitioners have not played any role in creating any documents. The petitioners have signed sale deed as witness. In this circumstances, the petitioners since are innocent having limited role of being witness to document and since not gained monetary benefit from sale transaction, should not be send to face trial. 6.1 Making above submissions, it is submitted to allow the petitions qua the petitioners and to quash the FIR. Submission in Criminal Misc. Application No.15977 of 2013
7. Learned advocate Mr.Buch for the petitioner - Ravishankar Sharma submitted that complainant has sold the disputed property to Ravishankar Sharma. Satakata and power of attorney were executed. However, all this facts have been Page 12 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined suppressed by the complainant in FIR. He would submit that alike confirmation deed executed with Bhaveshbhai Amin, complainant has also entered confirmation deed with Ravishankar Sharma and ratified transaction. He would submit that in the aforesaid circumstances, the complainant cannot disown that he has not executed power of attorney. He would further submit that complainant is playing hot and cold in same breath; on one hand the complainant is settling the dispute with purchaser Bhaveshbhai Amin and ratified his sale deed which is alleged to have been executed on the forged power of attorney, on the other hand, he continues his quarrel with Ravishankar Sharma on the ground that Ravishankar Sharma has created forged power of attorney. It is submitted that complainant since has no fairness or facts which can match with truth, FIR be quashed by allowing this petition.
Submission on behalf of respondent No.2 - complainant
8. Learned advocate Mr.Jain for respondent no.2 submitted that complainant did not receive single pie from the alleged transaction which are stated in the sale deed issued in favour of Ravishankar Sharma. Non receipt of sale consideration indicates and demonstrate fallacy of sale deed, which is rightly Page 13 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined concluded by the competent civil Court in civil suit. He would submit that alleged power of attorney being base to execute questioned sale deed was never produced in any of the proceedings between the parties and even not collected in the investigation. Prima facie, it shows that power of attorney deed is collusive and fabricated to usurp land of the complainant. It is submitted that by skulduggery and chicanery tactics fraud has been played with the complainant; his large chunk of land is taken away by the petitioners preparing forged power of attorney. He would submit that land is now pricing around crores of rupess, which is attempted to be grabbed by systematic swindle and forgery. Thus he submits that since all pettiions are bereft merits, they be dismissed. Learned advocate Mr.Jain relied on judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Punit Beriwala v/s. State of NCT of Delhi [2025 SCC Online 983]. 8.1. Making above submissions, it is submitted to dismiss the petitions.
Submission of learned APP for respondent - State.
9. Learned APP would submit that the petitions are filed at threshold on filing of FIR and therefore, no sufficient Page 14 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined investigation is carried. He would submit that during little investigation, it reveals that power of attorney is forged. He would submit that it further reveals that Ravishankar Sharma one of the petitioner - accused on oath has filed affidavit stating that he has forged power of attorney as he was in need of money and sold property to the petitioner - Bhaveshbhai Amin and obtained sale consideration to fulfill his need. Thus, prima facie investigation reveals and supports the case of the complainant that power of attorney is forged. He would further submit that accused Ravishankar Sharma has previous two antecedent to his credit and looking to all this aspects, he submits that detail investigation would reveal further truth but at this juncture, the Court may not quash the FIR.
10. I have heard learned advocates for the parties and also perused record. At the outset, what could be noticed that all four petitioner alleged to have played different roles in commission of offence. Role of petitioner of Cr.M.A.No.10060 of 2013 and Cr.M.A.No.10062 of 2013 is limited to that of signing as witness in sale deed. Petitioner of Cr.M.A.No.10988 of 2013 is stated as purchaser of disputed property paying sale consideration to Ravishankar Sharma, whereas, Ravishankar Sharma being Page 15 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined petitioner of Cr.M.A.No.15977 of 2013 is charged with offence that he has forged power of attorney of complainant and swindled large chunk of land without paying any pie.
11. FIR speaks as under (it is in Gujarati, for better understanding it is translated in English ) :-
"My name is Dilipbhai Bhaktidas Doshi, aged 65 years, occupation- business, R/o 803(B), Bhadralok Tower, Old Padra Road, Vadodara City, Mob. 93762 10265.
I hereby state the facts of my complaint upon being asked in person that I reside at the aforementioned address and run a business of plastic processing under the name Aditya Industries, located within the compound of Harkashi Rice and Pulse Mill, at Village Samiyala, near Padra.
On 23/01/2013, I submitted a written application to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch seeking an investigation against (1) Ravishankar Bhanvarlal Sharma, R/o A/136, Jay Yogeshwar Soceity, Sama, Vadodara City, (2) Mukundbhai Shah, Notary, R/o Parshottamnagar Society, Akota Road, Vadodara, (3) Bhavesh Nareshchandra Amin, R/o Ahmedabad, (4) Jaimin Jayantbhai Gandhi, R/o 31, Ajitnagar, Akota, Vadodara, (5) D.M.Patel, R/o unknown, (6) Chetan Kanaiyalal Pandya, R/o B-303, Amrapali Society, Karelibaug, Vadodara; as well as any others who may be found during the couorse of investigation; since they, in collusion with one another, fabricated a forged power of attorney in favor of Ravishankar Bhanvarlal Sharma, R/o A/136, Jay Yogeshwar Society, Sama, Vadodara, for the purpose of usurping a land held under old tenure bearing Revenue Survey No. 60 and New Block No. 51, situated in Village Khanpur, District Vadodara; and produced it before the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kuber Bhuvan; and on the basis of the faudulent power of attoreny, usurped the land by executing a sale deed in favor of Bhavesh Nareshchandra Amin, R/o Ahmedabad. An investigation in Page 16 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined connection with the said application has been conducted. I hereby state the facts of my complaint as follows:
In the year 1989, I had purchased a land held under old tenure, bearing Revenue Survey No. 60 and New Block No. 51, situated in Village Khanpur, District Vadodara, from the original owner, namely Mansukhlal Gangadas Maheta and others on 06/06/1989. By virtue of the Sale Deed No. 6404/89, duly registered in my favor, I became the lawful owner and possessor of the said land. Further, my name is also recorded as the owner of the said land in the revenue records.
As I was in need of funds, I decided to sell the land under my ownership bearing the aforementioned survey number. Accordingly, I executed an agreement for sale in favor of Sunilbhai Chandrakantbhai Patel and Ravindra Murlidhar Jajodiya on 28/07/2005. Subsequently, the actual possession of the said land was handed over to them on 10/05/2008 by executing a written agreement. Since the balance amount remained unpaid, I did not execute the sale deed in their favor. However, the aforementioned two individuals filed a Suit No. 69/09 in the Court of Civil Judge, Vadodara, seeking to enforce the agreement for sale. The suit currently sub judice.
The agreement for sale and possession of the said land were handed over Sunilbhai Chandrakantbhai Patel and Ravindra Murlidhar Jajodiya, who have since been managing the property. Meanwhile, on 30/05/2009, I received a notice of mutation under section 135(D) of the Land Revenue Code from the Office of the Mamlatdar, Vadodara. From the details contained in the notice, I learned that a person namely, Ravishankar Bhanvarlal Sharma, purporting to be my power of attorney holder, executed a sale deed of the land bearing aforementioned survey number in favor of Bhavesh Nareshchandra Amin. Upon verification with the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Vadodara, I discovered that Ravishankar Bhanvarlal Sharma had affixed my forged signatures to a fabricated power of attorney relating to the said land of aforesaid survey number. Further, by relying upon the forged power of attorney, he executed a sale deed for the sale of the said Page 17 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined property to Bhavesh Nareshchandra Amin on 06/05/2009 in consideration amount of Rs.1,33,54,000/-. The said sale deed is registered with the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Vadodara, under Serial No. 4611.
Upon inquiry into the irrevocable general power of attorney, fraudulently prepared on 10/01/2006 on a stamp paper valued at Rs.100 by Ravishankar Bhanvarlal Sharma concerning my land bearing the aforementioned survey number, I discovered that the stamp used in the said power of attorney was purchased on 05/01/2006 from Mr. Prakash C. Vaidya, a stamp vendor from Rajpipla. Further, my photograph was affixed, and a short signature resembling mine was appended to the said power of attorney. I state that I have never visited Rajpipla for the purchase of the stamp, I have never executed the said power of attorney in favor of Ravishankar Sharma. Moreover, the signature on power of attorney is also not mine. The power of attorney bears the signature and seals of notary, Mukund Shah. However, I have not approached this notary in relation to this matter. Additionally, I do not know the witness, D.M.Patel, whose name appears in the said power of attorney. Accordingly, the irrevocable general power of attorney executed by me is fraudulent.
Therefore, (1) Ravishankar Bhanvarlal Sharma, R/o A/136, Jay Yogeshwar Society, Sama, Vadodara, (2) Mukundbhai Shah, Notary, R/o Parshottamnagar Society, Akota Road, Vadodara, (3) Bhavesh Nareshchandra Amin R/o Ahmedabad, (4) Jaimin Jayantbhai Gandhi, R/o 31, Ajitnagar, Akota, Vadodara, (5) D.M.Patel, R/o unknown, (6) Chetan Kanaiyalal Pandya, R/o B-303, Amrapali Society, Karelibaug, Vadodara; along with others who may be identified during the course of investigation, are responsible for usurping the land bearing Revenue Survey No. 60 and New Block No. 51, situated in Village Khanpur, Taluka Vadodara. I further state that Ravishankar Bhanvarlal Sharma, R/o A/136, Jay Yogeshwar Society, Sama, Vadodara prepared a forged power of attorney purportedly executed by me. Despite being aware of its fradulent nature, he presented the said power of attorney before the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kuber Bhuvan, and on this basis, executed a sale deed in favor of Bhavesh Nareshchandra Page 18 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined Amin, R/o Ahmedabad. By these acts, the accused have committed an offense involving the usurption of land valued at crores of rupees. Accordingly, I hereby lodge my complaint against the aforementioned individuals and request a lawful investigation against them. My witness are Sunilbhai Chandrakantbhai Patel, Ravindra Murlidhar Jajodiya, and others to be identified during the investigation."
12. To be noted that all the petitions are filed at threshold of filing FIR and interim relief is operating in the matters, investigation is therefore, not carried to much substance.
13. In the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs. State Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2021 (19) SCC 401, Hon'ble Apex Court after surveying various authorities laid down final conclusion with regard to exercise of power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. and Article 226 of the Constitution of India as under :-
"33. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or "no coercive steps to be adopted", during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or "no coercive steps to be adopted" during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the Page 19 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under:
i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence;
ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;
iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the 'rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere;
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;
x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;Page 20 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined
xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;
xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;
xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;
xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint;
xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR;
xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Page 21 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or "no coercive steps to be adopted" and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order.
xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of "no coercive steps to be adopted" within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by "no coercive steps to be adopted" as the term "no coercive steps to be adopted" can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied."
14. Recently, in Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 185, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the Page 22 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined position of law for quashing the FIR as under:-
"8. It is well established that a High Court, in exercising its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, may issue orders to prevent the abuse of court processes or to secure the ends of justice. These inherent powers are neither controlled nor limited by any other statutory provision. However, given the broad and profound nature of this authority, the High Court must exercise it sparingly. The conditions for invoking such powers are embedded within Section 482 of the CrPC itself, allowing the High Court to act only in cases of clear abuse of process or where intervention is essential to uphold the ends of justice.
9. It is in this backdrop that this Court, over the course of several decades, has laid down the principles and guidelines that High Courts must follow before quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold, thereby pre- empting the Prosecution from building its case before the Trial Court. The grounds for quashing, inter alia, contemplate the following situations : (i) the criminal complaint has been filed with mala fides; (ii) the FIR represents an abuse of the legal process; (iii) no prima facie offence is made out; (iv) the dispute is civil in nature; (v.) the complaint contains vague and omnibus allegations; and (vi) the parties are willing to settle and compound the dispute amicably (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335)."
15. Useful reference can also be made to judgment in case of MCD v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, (1983) 1 SCC 1: 1983 SCC (Cri) 115, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that proceedings can be quashed on the face of the complaint and papers accompanying the same if no offence is constituted. The Court cannot add or subtract anything. In para 10, it has been held as under:- Page 23 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined "10. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that proceedings against an accused in the initial stages can be quashed only if, on the face of the complaint or the papers accompanying the same, no offence is constituted. In other words, the test is that taking the allegations and the complaint as they are, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence is made out, then the High Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the present Code."
16. Rival submissions are thus examined in background of parameters laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court.
17. Case of petitioner Bhaveshbhai Amin is clear and conspicuous. He claims that he has also been cheated by Mr.Ravishankar Sharma, who has shown him documents and power of attorney, pursuant to which, petitioner Bhaveshbhai Amin decided to purchase disputed land, issued cheque of Rs.23,54,000/- in favour of Ravishankar Sharma and paid Rs.10 lakhs in cash. It is not the case of the prosecution that cheque in question were not issued and not paid to Mr.Ravishankar Sharma. Since the petitioner after executing sale deed came across notice dated 22.07.2009 published by complainant in Sandesh Newspaper that he has not given power of attorney to Ravishankar Sharma and said bogus / fabricated power of Page 24 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined attorney is cancelled, immediately, the petitioner Bhaveshbhai approached Collector Office, Vadodara (Annexure E) and raised complaint that he has been cheated by Ravishankar Sharma. There is no denial to this aspect. Learned advocate Mr.Jain could not point out any different aspect. What further emerges that complainant has lodged two previous complaint i.e. one before Commissioner of Police, Vadodara dated 13.05.2010 and another before learned JMFC dated 13.08.2010. In both the complaints, complainant has not raised any allegations against petitioner Bhaveshbhai. In both the complaints, all the allegations were pointed towards Ravishankar Sharma. In private complaint before the learned JMFC, the complainant has also recorded his verification. Apt to note that in both the complaints, petitioner Bhaveshbhai Amin is arraigned as witness.
18. In addition to that; fact could be noticed that one confirmation deed was executed on 15.03.2010 and was notarized on 17.03.2010, whereby, complainant has ratified sale deed executed in favour of petitioner Bhaveshbhai (Annexure J). Perusal of record, more particularly, (Page no.307) report of FSL, establish that thumb impression of complainant on confirmation Page 25 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined deed is genuine. This Court however, does not dealt with this issue extensively as learned Civil Court has already cancelled confirmation deed and issue is writ large before learned Appellate Court.
19. Noticeably FIR which is sought to be quashed does not disclose filing of previous complaints or execution of confirmation deed. Learned advocate Mr.Narendra Jain for respondent no.2 / complainant could not point out why complainant has not mentioned about filing of previous complaints in the impugned FIR. Similarly, notable that FIR is filed after dispute was previously redressed as confirmation deed was executed.
20. In case of Haji Iqbal @ Bala v/s. State of U.P. [2023 INSC 688], Hon'ble Apex Court in para 15 observed as under :-
"15. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely.Page 26 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. ....... "
21. At this stage, observation of Co-ordinate Bench in First Appeal No.2275 of 2023 with Civil Application No.1 of 2023 of 2013 pending between the parties on civil front deserves glance. In para 6 and 7 it is observed as under :-
"6. Captioned proceeding is arising out of the challenge to the sale deed dated 6.5.2009 executed by the power of attorney holder - defendant No.5 in favour of the applicant - appellant for which, consideration as indicated in Par.3 has been paid; some through cheque and some by way of cash. Against the said power of attorney, the plaintiff has registered an F.I.R. with the Vadodara City Police Station for the offences under the Indian Penal Code and appears to have been pending. Similarly, a complaint has been filed with the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Para.12 of the complaint reflects about the understanding between the plaintiff and the applicant - appellant. Execution of the confirmation deed is acknowledged by the plaintiff. The said complaint is on oath which aspect, is strengthened by the verification below the complaint.Page 27 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined
7. Therefore, in the prima facie opinion of this Court, there is no reason to disbelieve the contents of the complaint filed by the plaintiff with the Court concerned. Perusal of the contents of the confirmation deed, suggest the understanding between the parties to the effect that the applicant - appellant has paid consideration to the plaintiff. Para.2 indicates about the consideration. However, there is some dispute about the receipt of the said amount in the account of the plaintiff. Even if one goes by the contents of Para.3 of the confirmation deed, it was agreed between the parties that since the amount of sale consideration has been received, the plaintiff, would not like to continue with the disputes between the parties. The sale deed dated 6.5.2009 has been accepted."
22. There is no gainsay that in aforesaid observation, Co- ordinate Bench has noticed filing of previous complaints before registration of FIR. In the aforesaid order, learned advocate for the complainant stated that value of land may be considered as Rs.2.50 Crores and not Rs.1.33 Crores. Statement of learned advocate was recorded in para 2.1 of the order.
23. At this stage, reference to para 3 in order of Civil Application No.1 of 2023 is required to be made. Para 3 reads as under :-
"3. At this stage, Mr. Apurva Vakil, learned advocate submitted that though amount included in the sale deed was Rs.1.33 Crores, during the proceedings, it has come out that the value of the land, is Rs.2.50 Crores, hence, the Page 28 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined applicant - appellant be directed to deposit the same. Mr. Tattvam Patel, learned advocate states that the amount shall be deposited within two weeks i.e. by 17.02.2025."
24. The Court is not examining dispute further as it is writ large before the learned Appellate Court but looking to FIR closely, it indicates that role of petitioner - Bhaveshbhai Amin appears limited as bona fide purchaser. There is nothing on record from any angle of FIR, which indicates that petitioner Bhaveshbhai Amin has forged documents or used forged document as genuine document or has knowingly got benefit of forged power of attorney.
25. FIR states offence under section 406, 420, 465, 467, 471, 120(B) of Indian Penal Code. Offence of section 465 and 467 are with regard to punishment for forgery and forgery of valuable security, Will, whereas, offence of section 468 is forgery for purpose of cheating. Offence of section 471 is using as genuine a forged document. Forgery is defined in section 463 of IPC, it reads as under :-
"463. Forgery.-- Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery."Page 29 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined
26. Section 464 of IPC defines making a false documents. This offence is base to attract offence under section 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC it reads as under :-
26.1. Basic element of forgery are: (i) the making of a false document or part of it and (ii) such making should be with such intention as is specified in the Section viz. (a) to cause damage or injury to (i) the public, or (ii) any person; or (b) to support any claim or title; or (c) to cause any person to part with property; or
(d) to cause any person to enter into an express or implied contract; or (e) to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed.
[See : Sushil Suri v/s. Central Bureau of Investigation - AIR 2011 SC 1713].
27. Section 464 of Indian Penal Code shows that it divides false documents in three categories :-
1. The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed.Page 30 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined
2. The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person.
3. The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.
In short, a person is said to have made a `false document', if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses.
28. Sale deed in question executed in favour of the petitioner do not fall under the second and third categories of 'false documents'. Therefore, it remains to be seen whether sale deed falls in first category. At this juncture, it is to be reminded that the petitioner - Bhaveshbhai Amin is purchaser. In para 16 and 17, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim (supra) observed as under :-
16. There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a Page 31 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bonafide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of `false documents', it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed.
17. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither section 467 nor section 471 of the Code are attracted.
29. Finding aforesaid clearly meet that since petitioner - Bhaveshbhai Amin is purchaser of property cannot be prosecuted for the offence of cheating and forging false power of attorney. To be recollected that petitioner - Bhaveshbhai Amin having discovered that power of attorney in favour of Ravishankar Sharma is forged and used to execute sale deed in his favour, immediately filed complaint with Collector, Vadodara that he has been cheated. The conduct of petitioner is sufficient to say that he is bona fide purchaser.
Page 32 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined
30. Now let examine whether ingredients of cheating or criminal breach of trust is made out. Facts reveal that petitioner
- Bhaveshbhai Amin has neither tried to deceive complainant nor has intend to cheat complainant from beginning. He has not made false or misleading representation or deceived complainant, fraudulently or dishonestly induce the complainant so deceived to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property or intentionally induces the complainant so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, nor even complainant alleged that petitioner has induced him or made false representation.
31. What appears on record that since petitioner Bhaveshbhai Amin was treated as witness of complainant till filing of questioned FIR and even questioned FIR taken on its face value, it discloses role of the petitioner, not as accused.
32. In premise of aforesaid finding being limited to decide present quashing matter, suffice to say that petitioner Bhaveshbhai Amin should not face trial.
Page 33 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined
33. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. B.Bhajanlal & ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, the Hon'ble Apex Court summed up the proposition of law, which reads as under:-
"(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 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 bare engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) toi 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.Page 34 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined (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."
34. There is no gainsay so far as role of petitioner Ravishankar Sharma is concerned that he is main accused person. FIR in its entirety points finger against him that he has created forged power of attorney and misrepresented himself as owner of property and executed sale deed in favour of petitioner - Bhaveshbhai Amin.
35. In addition to above, investigation papers reveal that in affidavit of Ravishankar Sharma dated 26.09.2009 executed before notary Mr.V.J.Bhatia he stated on oath that he has forged power of attorney and agreement to sale was registered with notary Mr.Mukund Shah. Upon strength of this power of attorney he sold the disputed land to petitioner Bhaveshbhai Amin and spend entire amount which he received under sale deed for his personal use. Nature of this affidavit is confessional statement, however, FIR is sought to be quashed at threshold. Therefore, without discussing evidentiary value of this affidavit, considering other supporting material on record, this Court is of Page 35 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined the firm view that petitioner - Ravishankar Sharma knowing fully well that he is not owner of the disputed property sold it to petitioner Bhaveshbhai Amin, which attracts alleged offence at first blush.
36. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Ltd. v/ s. State of Uttar Pradesh [2020 SCC Online SC 958], in para 41 has held as under :-
"41. It is needless to point out that ever since the decision of the Privy Council in King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed AIR 1945 PC 18, the law is well settled that Courts would not thwart any investigation. It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on. As cautioned by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. While examining a complaint, the quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or in the complaint. In S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat (2001) 7 SCC 659 this Court again cautioned that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. Quashing of a complaint should rather be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. In S.M. Datta (supra), this Court held that if a perusal of the first information report leads to disclosure of an offence even broadly, law courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere."Page 36 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined
37. Thus qua accused Ravishankar Sharma, FIR discloses cognizable offence.
37.1. In addition to above, there are some offences recorded to the credit of petitioner - Ravishankar Sharma. It reveals from police papers.
38. In premise of aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that petitioners viz. Bhaveshbhai Nareshchandra Amin, Chetan Kanaiyalal Pandya and Jaimin Jayantibhai Gandhi have made out case to exercise jurisdiction. Finding at Sr. No.1, 3, 5 and 7 of para 102 of Bhajan Lal's case squarely applies to them. However, allegations against petitioner - Ravishankar Bhanwarlal Sharma is prima facie substantiated based on material placed on record and they are sufficient to send him for trial. The Court therefore, is of the opinion that power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not required to be exercised in favour of petitioner - Ravishankar Bhanwarlal Sharma.
39. For the foregoing reasons, following order is passed :-
(1) Criminal Misc. Application No.10988 of 2013, Criminal Misc. Application No.11060 of 2013 and Criminal Page 37 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10988/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined Misc. Application No.11062 of 2013 are allowed and questioned FIR being C.R.No.I-12 of 2013 registered with DCB Crime Police Station, Vadodara and further proceedings arising out of the said FIR is hereby quashed qua the petitioners viz. Bhaveshbhai Nareshchandra Amin, Chetanbhai Kanaiyalal Pandya and Jaimin Jayantibhai Gandhi. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(2) Criminal Misc. Application No.15977 of 2013 filed by petitioner - Ravishankar Bhanwarlal Sharma stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier, if any, stands vacated.
(3) Consequently, Criminal Misc. Application No.1 of 2022 filed for modification of condition in Criminal Misc.
Application No.15977 of 2018 stands disposed of.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) After pronouncement of the judgment, the petitioner of Criminal Misc. Application No. 15977 of 2013 requests to extend the interim relief for further four weeks. Request is rejected mainly on the reasons stated herein-above.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SATISH Page 38 of 38 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 23:05:59 IST 2025