Gujarat High Court
Chimanbhai Kikabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 17 July, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13461/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 13461 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
=====================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
=====================================================
CHIMANBHAI KIKABHAI PATEL & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR NIRUPAM D NANAVATY SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR DAIFRAZ
HAVEWALLA(3982) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR JAYDEVSINH CHUDASAMA(13128) for the Respondent(s)
No. 3
MR PREM D DAVE(10958) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR KANVA ANTANI ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 17/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned senior advocate Mr. Nirupam D. Nanavaty with learned advocate Mr. Daifraz Havewalla appearing for the applicants, learned Page 1 of 13 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:11:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13461/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 - State and its authority and learned advocate Mr. Prem D. Dave appearing for the respondent No.3.
2. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing. Hence, RULE. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives the service of rule on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned advocate Mr. Prem Dave waives the service of rule on behalf of the respondent No.3.
3. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside F.I.R. bearing C. R. No. I-240 of 2013 registered with Khatodara Police Station, District : Surat for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2) (V) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act as well Page 2 of 13 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:11:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13461/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the applicant.
4. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition can be summarized as under :-
4.1 As per the averments made in the impugned F.I.R., the accused persons had forged certain documents with a view to defraud heirs and legal representatives of deceased Chhitliben i.e. the owner of the land in question. It is further alleged that a forged and unregistered Will was executed in the year 1977 by deceased Chhitliben, though she had died in the year 1959 and also forged a pedigree of deceased Chhitliben and on the basis of the said Will and the pedigree, the accused persons had effected different mutation entries in the revenue record and entered the name of Jamnaben, daughter of Hirabhai Lalbhai and on her death, entered the names of her heirs and thus, they have grabbed the valuable land having ownership of the deceased Chhitliben.
Page 3 of 13 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:11:20 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13461/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined 4.2 Learned senior counsel Mr. Nirupam Nanavaty for the applicants has submitted that following list of dates and events may be taken into consideration in order to appreciate the controversy on the present matter. a. Survey No.194(1), which is now Revenue Survey No.116/1 of village Vesu, District : Surat, was originally owned by one Chhaganbhai Mulchandbhai.
b. The said land was admeasuring 4400 sq.mtrs. In the said land one Jamshedji Burjorji was the tenant of the land admeasuring 3200 sq.mtrs, and one Chhitliben Bhulabhai was the tenant of the land admeasuring 1200 sq.mtrs. The same was recorded in the revenue record by way of Entry No.179 dated 22.11.1957.Thereafter, Chhitliben passed away in the year 1959.
c. Entry No.306 came to be mutated in the revenue record. As per the said entry, in connection with one parcel of land admeasuring Page 4 of 13 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:11:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13461/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined 3200 sq.mtrs, Jamshedji Burjorji was declared as a tenant of the said land and the provisions of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Tenancy Act) were followed and a certificate of Sale to the said effect was given to him and sale consideration was paid to the legal heirs of the original owner of the land in question.
d. Notices were issued to Chhitliben in accordance with the provisions of Section 32G(1) of the Tenancy Act in connection with her share of 1200 sq.mtrs of land bearing Survey No.194(1), which is now Survey No.116(1). e. On 23.04.1977, Chhitliben by way of a Will had bequeathed the said land to one Jamnaben, daughter of Hirabhai Lalabhai but the same could not be done as Chhitliben had paased away on 18.11.1959. The applicants herein are the heirs of Jamnaben on whom the land has vested after the demise of Jamnaben with Succession Entry No.5750.
Page 5 of 13 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:11:20 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13461/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined f. In the year 2002, Chhitliben was shown as alive and she was issued a certificate under Section 32M of the Tenancy Act by the Mamlatdar pertaining to 3200 sq.mtrs of the land in question, though her share was 1200 sq.mtrs. Moreover, Jamshedji Burjorji was cited as the owner of the land, though he was a tenant of 3200 sq.mtrs and the original owner was Chhaganbhai Mulchandbhai and Chhitliben was shown as the tenant in the said land. g. It has been alleged that thereafter, a bogus Will of Chhitliben, a bogus pedigree and a bogus letter of consent was got up by the accused persons(not the applicants) to enter their names in the revenue record.
h. Entry No.3438 was effected on the basis of a sale certificate, issued by the Mamlatdar, Choryasi under the provisions of Section 32M of the Tenancy Act. As per the said entry, Chhitliben was shown as the owner of the land in Page 6 of 13 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:11:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13461/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined question upon the payment of purchase price. i. As the entry came to be mutated in the revenue record being Entry No.3470 as per which the name of Jamnaben came to be entered into the revenue record on the basis of the Will of Chhitliben and thereafter, Jamnaben has passed away.
j. Thereafter, on 14.12.2009, an Entry came to be mutated in the revenue record being Entry No.5750, by which the names of the applicants have been entered in the revenue record on the basis of succession as they are the heirs of Jamnaben.
k. Suddenly, the heirs of Chhitliben got up and started making complaints against the applicants.
l. The matter was referred to the Special Investigating Team and on 25.03.2013, they filed a report that a complaint is to be filed against the Mamlatdar and the relevant persons who were Page 7 of 13 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:11:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13461/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined instrumental in getting Entry Nos.3438 and 3470 mutated in the revenue record and finally, the F.I.R. came to filed on 30.08.2013. 4.3 Learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavaty submitted that Jamnaben, who was the beneficiary of the Will has already passed away in the year 2006 and the only role attributed to the present applicant is that they have signed the Pedigree as well as Will in favour of Jamnaben and they are not the beneficiary of the transaction of land in favour of Jamnaben or her legal heirs. 4.4 Learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavaty also drew attention of this Court that actual beneficiary of the land in whose favour the land was transferred approached this Court by way of Criminal Misc. Application No.16836 of 2017 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 24072 of 2019 and learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavaty submitted that the FIR qua those persons who were the actual beneficiaries of the land in question have already been quashed by this Court by order Page 8 of 13 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:11:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13461/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined dated 14.02.20219 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 16836 of 2017 which was preferred by Dahiben Gijubhai Patel and by order dated 10.02.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 24072 of 2019 which was preferred by Rajeshbhai Gijubhai Patel. 4.5 Learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavaty further drew attention of this Court to the affidavit filed by one Pankajbhai Gijubhai Patel which is at page No. 264 and by referring to paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 9 of the affidavit, learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavaty submitted that even the actual beneficiary has stated on oath before this Court that the land in question is now vested with the Government and even in the revenue record also, the name of Government is shown. It is also pointed out by learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavaty that the aforesaid deponent Mr. Pankajbhai Gijubhai Patel was also shown as an accused when the charge-sheet was filed and subsequently, the proceedings were Page 9 of 13 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:11:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13461/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined quashed qua him as well vide order dated 10.02.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 24072 of 2019 which was preferred by Rajeshbhai Gijubhai Patel and others and therefore, the affidavit filed by Pankajbhai Gajubhai Patel would clearly indicate that the beneficiary of the land has surrendered the land in favour of the Government and Government is in possession of the land in question and therefore, no benefits are derived by the present applicants from the transaction in question.
4.6 In view of above submission, learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavaty has prayed for quashing of the FIR qua present applicants who alleged to have signed the Pedigree and Will of deceased Chhitliben in favour of Jamnaben.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State though vehemently opposed the petition. However, he could not point out that in anyway, the present applicants Page 10 of 13 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:11:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13461/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined role can be said to be graver than the role of applicants of Criminal Misc. Application No. 16836 of 2017 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 24072 of 2019 who were the beneficiaries of the transaction in question and therefore, he submitted that appropriate order be passed.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Prem Dave appearing for the respondent No.3 also submitted that he does not have any objection if the FIR and all consequential proceedings are quashed in view of the fact that in respect of other co-accused who are having graver role than the present applicants, the FIR and all consequential proceedings were quashed.
7. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and considered the submissions made by them. I have also perused the order dated 14.02.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 16836 of 2017 and order dated 10.02.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 24072 of 2019. Upon perusal of above orders, what Page 11 of 13 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:11:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13461/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined could be seen is the fact that the beneficiaries of the transaction in question approached this Court by way of Criminal Misc. Application No. 16836 of 2017 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 24072 of 2019 and qua them the FIR is already quashed. The present applicants happens to be the signatories as witness to the Pedigree and Will whereby the property was bequeathed in favour of Jamnaben from Chhitliben and they cannot be said to be the beneficiaries of the transaction in question. Further, the affidavit of the Pankajbhai Gijubhai Patel at page No.264 and more particularly, paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 also indicates that the land in now with the Government for which revenue entry is also mutated and nothing contrary could be pointed out by learned APP or learned advocate Mr. Prem Dave and therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances as well as considering the fact that the FIR and all consequential proceedings qua main accused have already been quashed, this is a fit case to quash the FIR qua Page 12 of 13 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:11:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13461/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined the present applicants also.
8. Resultantly, the present application is allowed.
The impugned F.I.R. being C.R.No.I-240 of 2013 registered with Khatodara Police Station, District : Surat as well as all other consequential proceedings arising from the impugned F.I.R. are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicants. Rule is made absolute.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) Pallavi Page 13 of 13 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:11:20 IST 2025