Gujarat High Court
Mona Arvind Patel vs Hiteshbhai Maganbhai Valamkar on 28 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/620/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 07/11/2025
Pronounced On : 28/11/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 620 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
MONA ARVIND PATEL
Versus
HITESHBHAI MAGANBHAI VALAMKAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
PARTY IN PERSON(5000) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RIDDHESH TRIVEDI(6581) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 6,7
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
CAV JUDGMENT
1. The present revision application has been preferred by the present petitioner - original complainant under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 (For short "The Cr.P.C") directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad in Criminal Inquiry No.12680 of 2023 by passing the order below Exhibit-1 dismissed the complaint of the present Page 1 of 16 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:22:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/620/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined petitioner - original complainant under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C dated 12.02.2024.
2. The factual matrix of the present case is that the present petitioner has filed one private complaint against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code on 06.02.2023 and the said complaint came to be filed and subsequently, the Court has, on the very same day, passed an order that pursuant to the said private complaint, application has been given to the Gujarat University Police Station and considering the fact that exercising the power under Section 210 of the Cr.P.C asked and called for the report from the concerned police station within 20 days and thereafter, a report of the police came and it was disclosed that no offence has been disclosed and the said report was objected by the original complainant before the Magistrate and subsequently, the Court has, on 01.06.2023, ordered to record the verification of the complainant and the verification of the complainant was recorded on 16.06.2023 and subsequently, after considering the objections of the original complainant, learned Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C on 12.02.2024. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order passed by the Magistrate, the present revision application has been preferred before this Court only. It is an admitted position that the present petitioner - original Page 2 of 16 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:22:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/620/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined complainant has not challenged the said Order of dismissal of the complaint before the learned Sessions Court.
3. Heard the Party-in-person - original complainant and she had submitted that the respondent no.1 is the property broker who has contacted the present petitioner through advertisement in newspaper and respondent no.2 is an advocate who operates under the name of Unique Sewa Law Firm and the respondent no.3 is a notary and respondent nos.2 and 3 are co- participators in the criminal action and respondent no.4 is the power of attorney of the owner of the Flat No.8 in Aatmajyoti Flat and on instructions of respondent no.4 and their family arrangement, cheque issued by the petitioner were made out in the name of the respondent no.5. Further, she has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned JMFC is on the face of it is incorrect, patently arbitrary and perverse and the order is passed relying on irrelevant law and hence also, required to be set aside. Further, Party-in-person further submitted that Section 8(2) of the Notaries Act says that no action specified in Sub-section 1 shall be deemed to be a notaries act except when and it is done by the notary under the signature. Learned Trial Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the other offences. Acts were committed by the respondent no.3 that does not reflect in the character of the Notarial Act and learned Trial Court has erroneously held that the Page 3 of 16 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:22:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/620/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined complaint is barred under Section 13(1) of the Notaries Act, 1950 and hence also, order is required to be set aside. Further, she has submitted that main alteration by addition of 29 days on Page no.3 and the main alteration by cancellation of 10% and by addition of Rs.1000/- on Page no.4 of the Leave and License Agreement dated 17.03.2020 are alteration that are not complained of by the present petitioner. Such grounds is conspicuously absent in the complaint. The respondent have not been call upon to meet any charge by the petitioner. Further, she has submitted that findings and reasons given by the learned Trial Court in respect of alteration of complained by the petitioner are erroneous based on illegal perverse appreciation of matter of record and the law. On 17.03.2020 notary register and last execution page of the leave and license agreement are pre-signed by the respondent no.4 who remained absent when respondent nos.2 and 1 caused the petitioner to sign the leave and license agreement dated 17.03.2020 and the notary register of the respondent no.3 and the petitioners signed the leave and license agreement dated 17.03.2020 believing that the petitioners pre- signature requir at the pin-point place marked with cross in the leave and license agreement and would mark the contents in the paragraph no.3A to be inserted or filled up afterwards. But by alteration, overriding of the word "Licenser" with license and again by addition of the word "licensee" in paragraph no.3B and by omitting to fill up the contents of paragraph no.3A Page 4 of 16 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:22:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/620/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined caused to believe that the petitioner had signed and forgery committed in paragraph no.3B and not pre- signed the contest to be inserted paragraph no.3A. Further, she has submitted that the learned Trial Court has erroneously found that as the signature of the petitioner correspond to the alleged paragraphs, the petitioner has signed the alteration and in support, has referred to edition on the top left hand side of the page 2 of the leave and license agreement dated 17.03.2020. Further, she has submitted that the practice has been adopted to induce the petitioner to sign leave and license agreement and to sign alteration complaint and notary register of the respondent no.3 is by false representation knowingly made by the respondent nos.1 to 3 with a view that petitioner should act upon it by false description of things and misleading the statements. Further, she has submitted that police complaint i.e. LA No.192 of 2020 has been first filed on 25.03.2020 before the P.I. Gujarat University Police Station which is at the instance came to the PSI, Law Garden Police Chowki on the question of jurisdiction was transferred to the PSI, Gulbai Tekra Police Chowki on 23.06.2020 and the main ground police complaint has been filed by the petitioner much after or not immediately after the respondent nos.4 and 5 withdraw money, second time does not stand ground factually as well an amounts to virtually maintaining and advancing the dishonest, fraudulent act of the respondent nos.4 and 5. Further, she has submitted that the respondent Page 5 of 16 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:22:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/620/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined nos.1, 4 and 5 instead of returning the initial receipt of the sum of Rs.36,000/- on 18.03.2020 further withdraw from the petitioner another sum of Rs.18,000/- on 27.05.2020 given by the petitioner in advance as advanced cheque on 16.03.2020 for license fee against which, learned Trial Court has erroneously raised and considered the ground that the police complaint filed by the petitioner on 23.06.2020 has not been filed immediately after withdrawal of the money. Further, she has submitted that the proceedings under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C amount to an inquiry under Clause-3 of Section 202 of CR.P.C which includes any inquiry. Further, she has submitted that the leave and license agreement dated 17.03.2020 is forged by the respondent for more than one intention referred to Section 463 of the IPC and the leave and license agreement dated 17.03.2020 is forged as contemplated under the Clause- 3 of Section 464 of the IPC and used as contemplated under Section 471 of the IPC and to prove the offence under Section 467 of the IPC, the petitioner has proved all requisite required to be proved for the offence under Section 465 of the IPC and the offence committed by the respondent under Section 471 of the IPC i.e. punishable under Section 467 of the IPC provides punishment for forgery of the document and it was proved by the complainant that the accused has committed offence under Sections 464, 467 and 471 of the IPC but the learned Magistrate has not considered to these things and has dismissed the complaint as no offence has been Page 6 of 16 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:22:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/620/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined made out and is expressly bad in law, requires to be set aside. Further, during the hearing of the revision application, the present applicant has submitted some affidavits but that other averments and allegations made in the affidavit is not required to be considered by this Court as the Court has only exercising the revisional jurisdiction against the order passed by the learned Magistrate while dismissing the private complaint of the present petitioner before the Court.
4. Heard the learned advocate Mr. Riddhesh Trivedi appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 5. It is submitted that the present revision application is concerned, it is devoid of any merits, requires to be dismissed. The present petitioner is in habit of filing such type of false and frivolous complaints before the Courts and the learned Magistrate has rightly come to the conclusion that no offence has been made out in the private complaint and learned Trial Court has rightly dismissed the compliant. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner - complaint that her signature has been forged by anyone making a false allegation against the notary and typist as the respondent no.3 is notary and as per the Notaries Act, complaint cannot be maintainable against the notary also. Considering this, the present revision application is devoid of any merit, requires to be rejected.
5. After hearing the rival submissions, the present case in Page 7 of 16 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:22:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/620/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined hand is concerned, this Court is exercising revisional jurisdiction and the revisional jurisdiction is very limited and cannot be exercised I routine manner. One of the inbuilt restriction is that it should not be against the interim order or interlocutory order and Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex-facie and the power of the revision is to be exercised only to set right patent defect committed an error of jurisdiction of law and there has to be well-founded error and it cannot be appropriate for the Court to scrutinize the orders, which upon face of it, bears careful consideration and appears to be in accordance with law. So, revisional jurisdiction can be invoked when the decision under challenge are grossly erroneous and there is no compliance with the provisions of law and the findings recorded is based on no evidence and material evidence is ignored or jurisdictional discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversial. In that circumstance only, the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court.
6. Considering the above settled legal position, looking to the allegation made in the complaint before the Magistrate Court is concerned, the present complainant has given complaint and namely stated in the private complaint that the accused no.1 is the property broker who contacted the complaint through his advertisement in the local newspaper, accused no.2 is an advocate who Page 8 of 16 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:22:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/620/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined operates under the name of Unique Seva Law Firm then accused no.3 is the notary and whose register was carried out by the accused no.2. Accused no.4 - power of attorney holder of the owner of the Flat No.8 at Aatmajyoti Flat and requisite payment was made in the name of the accused no.5. Further, it is alleged that on 16.03.2020, the complainant was shown Aatmajyoti Flat by accused no.1 and on 17.03.2020, leave and license agreement/document was signed by the complainant to take effect from 01.04.2020. Further, it is alleged in the complaint that the intention of the accused is to establish that the complainant has not signed the document but also carried out signed alteration, remaining present along with the accused no.3, before accused no.3 in whose notary register, appearance of the complainant, signature implies the conduct of the signing the deposited document and alteration to which accused no.3 has affixed her sign and sealed the authority of the notary denote the execution of the document. It is further alleged in the complaint that forged document has been made dishonestly and fraudulently by the accused by causing belief that it was so made by the complainant by causing belief that it was so made by the complainant to the accused person who did not make it and document though bears the genuine signature of the complainant is a forged document made by forging part of the document and the accused person by making false representation and false description of things and dishonest conciliation of facts, received the Page 9 of 16 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:22:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/620/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined complainant and thereby, induced the complainant to sign the said document. Further, it is alleged in the complaint that the document was already been signed by the accused no.4 except at the pin point place who remained absent when accused nos.1 and 2 obtained the signature of the complainant in the said leave and license agreement and prevented the complainant from knowing the nature of the alteration ultimately, made by them. They have made the forgery and the complainant signed the said agreement believing that the complainant's pre-signature required at the pin-point place in the document would mark contents in the paragraph no.3A to be inserted or filled up afterwards by alteration, overriding of the word "Licenser" with "Licensee" and again by addition of word "licensee" in paragraph no.3B, the rights and liabilities of the document in its original state have been varied. Further, it is alleged that by omitting to fill up the contents in paragraph no.3A, the accused person caused to believe that the complainant has not signed the forgery committed in paragraph no.3B and not pre-signed the contents promised to be inserted in paragraph no.3A. Further, it was alleged that after securing the signature of the complainant in the document, the said document was in the custody of the accused no.2 for the purpose of obtaining signature of the accused no.4 at pin-point place for notarizing the document and all the accused knowingly committed a forgery by not signing by accused no.4 at the pin-point places by page no.5 of the Page 10 of 16 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:22:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/620/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined document which has been replaced in its original state did not contain paragraph no.5. Further, it is alleged that the accused person has forged the document obtaining the notarization of the forged document and used the forged document to receive money which purports to give them authority to receive money and all the accused dishonestly put forward the forged document as being genuine document supporting the claim to cause damage and injury to the complainant and caused the complainant to part with the property (money) and induced the complainant to enter into the forged agreement and instead of returning the initial receipt of sum of Rs.36,000/- on 18.03.2020. Further withdraw from the complainant another sum of Rs.18,000/- on 27.05.2020 given by the complainant in advance as advanced cheque for rent and accused no.1 has withdrawn from the complainant sum of Rs.18,000/- as legitimate brokerage purportedly towards his brokerage on the strength of the forged document and making such type of allegation, complaint came to be filed to issue the process against the accused person for the offence punishable under Section 465, 467 and 468 of the IPC on 06.02.2023
7. And on the same day, the Court has passed an order invoking the power under Section 210 of the Cr.P.C and called for the report from the Gujarat University Police Station and subsequently, after receipt of the police report has disclosed that no offence has been made out.
Page 11 of 16 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:22:55 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/620/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined
8. On 01.06.2023, Court has recorded the verification of the complainant and thereafter, after hearing the objection of the complainant, dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C as no offence has been disclosed against the accused person and the said order is under challenge.
9. Now, in this regard, it is required to consider the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court and as per the findings of the learned Magistrate, the document produced by 3/1 and3/4 are concerned, property stated in the said document is concerned, more particularly, leave and license agreement produced vide mark-3/1 is concerned, as per the csae of the prosecution after obtaining the signature of the complainant in the said leave and license agreement, certain alteration addition has been made and as per the case of the complainant in page no.3, paragraph no.4 in the said document, mark - 3/1 i.e. the leave and license agreement is concerned, subsequently, "29 days" has been added at pin-point place and the said alteration has been made without the consent and knowledge of the complainant. Learned Magistrate recorded that leave and license agreement.
10. Rent agreement is only for the period of 11 months and 29 days and it is not the case of the complainant that the said property was taken on rent for only 11 months. Further, in the said leave and license agreement can be Page 12 of 16 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:22:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/620/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined entered by giving one month previous notices to the license officer and canceled the said agreement after giving one months prior notice to the complainant and of page no.4 of the agreement para no.6 instead of 10% in accordance with the rent instead of Rs.1000/- increase has been mentioned there is no counter signature on that said amendment or alteration and the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.18000/-. Further, learned Magistrate has also recorded the finding that in the agreement produced vide mark-3/1 is concerned, on every page it bears the signature of the complainant but as per the allegation in the complaint that on page no.5, has been subsequently changed and there is no signature on that page. Further, it is recorded by the learned Trial Court that as per the agreement at page no.2 after writing Flat no.8 complaints another signature was obtained and it was admitted by the complainant that whenever there is an alteration or addition, the complainant signature has been obtained and page no.3 also in paragraph no.3B instead of Licensor word "licensee" has been corrected and even on site of that counter signature of the complainant is there. So, learned Magistrate come to the conclusion that said alteration or edition has been made with the knowledge of the complainant and in the same way, on page no.2, there is alteration or correction and recorded that correction counter signature of the complainant is found and the complainant has not stated the date on which she has signed this and so far the allegation pertained to page no.5 is concerned, that it Page 13 of 16 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:22:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/620/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined was subsequently, changed but no signature has been found on page no.5 as there is no alteration. Further, on the same page no.5, the complainant has no objection pertaining to the paragraph no.17.2 to paragraph no.24, but complainant has only objected to paragraph no.25 on the same page no.5 and as per the paragraph no.24 is concerned, it pertains to licensee failed to vacate the said premises on the expiry of the agreement or in this period, licenser shall be entitled to authorized to remove the belongings at the cost of the licensee. But these provisions is as per the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. Further, learned Trial Court has recorded the findings it is not the case of the complainant, the complainant has not taken the decision of the said rented premises, possession of the said rented premises or not taken the said flat on rent instead of the fact that on 18.03.2020, two rent given as security deposit and one rent pertained to the brokerage of this, has already been withdrawn. Further, as per the complainant, the change in the name or the alteration in the flat no.8 is concerned which has been made with the consent of the complainant. Further, the agreement was came into force from 01.04.2020 and as per the case of the complainant, the accused has also withdrawn. The second amount of the said cheque on 27.05.2023 is concerned, the learned Trial Court has recorded that the complainant has made a complaint regarding this for the first time, on 23.06.2020 and even the complainant has not made any efforts to make a stop-payment of the said Page 14 of 16 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:22:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/620/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined cheque. Further, it is alleged that the notary has to be his sign of signature in absence of the complainant. But for that purpose, it is recorded that another agreement produced vide mark-3/4 is concerned. It was executed before some another notary, but that notary has not been examined by the complainant.
11. So, the findings recorded by the learner Magistrate that looking to the overall allegation that certain alteration or addition has been made after the complainant has signed the agreement on every page whenever there is an addition or alteration, but after his signature has been obtained, the accused has subsequently made some alteration against the signature. But this fact has not been established by any cogent evidence, except the statement of the complainant. Nothing has been coming on record, so, the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court is concerned, the learned Trial Court has considered the contents of the complainant, the verification and the statement recorded by the Court and the report of the police also found that there is no offense has been disclosed. It is not the case that the signature of the complainant has been forged and it is not the case that some signature of the other accused persons who have signed the agreement are not signed by other persons. Considering this, the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate that no offence under Sections 465, 467 and 468 of the IPC made out prima facie and allegations made in the private complaint has Page 15 of 16 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:22:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/620/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined not been supported by any evidence. So, the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court is concerned, I do not find any illegality has been committed by the magistrate court. The findings recorded by the Court is just and proper and does not require any interference.
12. Hence, the present revision application is dismissed. The Order passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad in Criminal Inquiry No.12680 of 2023 by passing the order below Exhibit-1 is hereby confirmed.
13. Rule is discharged.
(L. S. PIRZADA, J) JCP Page 16 of 16 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:22:55 IST 2025