Gujarat High Court
Nareshbhai Kikubhai Desai vs State Of Gujarat on 1 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4457/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 17/03/2026
Pronounced On : 01/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 4457 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
NARESHBHAI KIKUBHAI DESAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS DIVYANGNA JHALA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
VAIBHAV V GOSWAMY(9019) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
CAV JUDGMENT
1. By filing the present petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter, to be referred as the CrPC), the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, quash and set-aside the order dated 15.01.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Surat, in Criminal Revision Application No.291 of to 2018, (At ANNEXURE-A hereto);
(B) During the pendency and final disposal of the Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Sat May 02 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 02:50:24 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4457/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined present application, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned judgment dated 15.01.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Surat, in Criminal Revision Application No.291 of 2018;
(C) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case;"
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to filing of the petition are such that the FIR being I-C.R. No.777 of the 2008 came to be registered with Umra police station, Surat city for offence punishable under section 406, 430, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against 11 persons. Initially, the investigating agency carried out the investigation into the FIR and submitted a C-Summary Report before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court did not accept the C-Summary Report and ordered further investigation. After carrying out the further investigation, the investigating agency filed charge-sheet against the accused persons along with the respondent no.02. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 approached the learned Trial Court by filing an Application under Section 239 of the CrPC vide Exhibit-95. Learned Trial Court dismissed the said application vide order dated 19.07.2018. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent no.2 approached the Learned Sessions Court by filing Criminal Revision Application No.291/2018. Learned Sessions Court vide order dated 15.01.2019 allowed the said Revision Application and discharged respondent no.2 herein from the charges. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Sat May 02 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 02:50:24 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4457/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.
3. Heard learned advocate Shri. P. P. Majumdar appearing for the petitioner. He submitted that the Learned Sessions Court has not considered the material collected against respondent no.2 in proper perspective. The respondent no.2 was very much part of the conspiracy hatched for committing the present offence and as a part of the said conspiracy, he had signed several documents in the capacity of a witness and therefore, respondent no.2 is implicated in the present offence with the help of Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The material collected by the investigating agency against respondent no.2 is sufficient to prosecute him for the offence in question. He further submitted that though respondent no.2 was quite aware of the fact that the petitioner herein had purchased the disputed land, he had agreed to be the witness to the documents which were executed with the intention of usurping the land in question. He further submitted that the Learned Sessions Court had discarded the observations made by the Learned Trial Court without any cogent reasons. He therefore submitted to allow the present petition and quash and set aside the impugned order.
4. Learned APP has supported the case of petitioner and submitted to quash and set aside the impugned order.
5. Learned Senior Advocate Shri. Anshin Desai appearing for respondent no.2 submitted that the order impugned in the petition is just and proper and the same does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. He therefore submitted Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Sat May 02 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 02:50:24 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4457/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined to dismiss the petition.
6. Heard learned advocates for the parties. The dispute involved in the present case revolves around land bearing Survey No.392(B) situated at Village-Vesu, District-Surat. One Gandabhai Govanbhai Patel was the original owner of the said land. In the year 1986, the land was sold by the original owner Gandabhai to one Hanskamal Grover. However, since the land in question was an agricultural land and Hanskamal Grover was not an agriculturalist, the Sale-deed could not be executed in favour of Hanskamal Grover and hence, an Agreement to Sell with possession was executed by the original owner Gandabhai in favour of Hanskamal Grover and the possession of the land was also handed over to him. On 16.02.1989, the original owner had also executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the said Hanskamal Grover. Hanskamal Grover, thereafter, sold the land to one Anil Taneja. However, due to some dispute between Anil Taneja and Hanskamal Grover, the said Anil Taneja had filed a Regular Suit No.702/1991. Thereafter, Keyur Manubhai Balar and Hanskamal Grover came into contact with each other and Hanskamal Grover had offered to sell the disputed land to petitioner. Resultantly, petitioner agreed to purchase the disputed land from Anil Taneja by paying full consideration to Anil Taneja and the original owner. The petitioner paid the entire dues to Anil Taneja and the original owner and the Regular Civil Suit No.702/1991 was compromised and permanent injunction was granted in favour of petitioner. It reflects from the record that another parcel of land, which was adjacent to the land purchased by Hanskamal Grover from the original owner, had Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Sat May 02 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 02:50:24 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4457/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined also been purchased by Hanskamal Grover. Since the petitioner wanted to develop the land by converting it to non-agricultural land, he had issued an advertisement in the local newspaper inviting objections from the interested parties and it came to his notice that though, the disputed land was sold to him after having pocketed money, the heirs of the original owner executed a Power of Attorney in favour of one Babubhai Manjibhai Gabani on 03.02.2006. On the basis of the same Power of Attorney, on 21.11.2006, Babubhai Gabani executed a Sale-deed in favour of Rameshbhai Navadiya. It also appears from the record that for effecting the said transaction, a consent letter in the name of wife of Hanskamal Grover namely Ramaben was prepared. Ramaben, in her statement given to the investigating agency on 25.03.2012, has stated that she had not given any such consent letter to Rameshbhai Navadiya, which indicates that the consent letter in the name of the said Ramaben was forged. In the interregnum, the land was converted into a non-agricultural land from an agricultural land and despite the same, Ramesh Navadiya sold the disputed land to one Nathabhai Ranchodbhai Jivani as an agricultural land. Nathabhai, in turn, sold 50% of the land in favour of Jitendra Waghasia and Ramesh Waghasia and the remaining 50% of the land was sold in favour of Jayesh Balar. Both Jitendra Waghasia and Ramesh Waghasia were assured that the titles of the land were clear. However, subsequently, Jitendra Waghasia and Ramesh Waghasia came to know that several litigations were going on pertaining to the land in question and that the titles of the land which was sold to them were not clear. They therefore, approached the accused persons and informed them that they did not want the disputed Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Sat May 02 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 02:50:24 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4457/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined land and demanded their money back. Thereafter, the disputed land was purchased by Keyur Manubhai Balar from Jitendra Waghasia and Ramesh Waghasia. The investigating agency has recorded the statement of Jitendra Waghasia on 24.03.2012 wherein he has stated that his younger brother namely Rameshbhai happened to know Nathabhai Ranchodbhai Jivani. The said Nathabhai Ranchodbhai Jivani was carrying on the business of sell and purchase of land in his office named Balar Exports and therefore, he and his brother happened to visit the office of Nathabhai Ranchodbhai Jivani. The perusal of the statement of the said Jitendra indicates that Keyur Manubhai Balar happens to be in close relations with the other co-accused and he also used to be present in the office of Balar Exports when Jitendrabhai and Rameshbhai used to visit. He has further stated that he and his brother had agreed to purchase share of 25% each in the disputed land from Nathabhai Ranchodbhai. They were promised that the titles of the land were clear and no dispute or litigation was going on qua the said land. Subsequently, they came to know that petitioner and his wife were having some interest in the land and some litigations were also going on in that regard since the year 2002. He also came to know that the heirs of original owner Gandabhai had executed a Power of Attorney in the name of Babubhai Gabani, though they had no right over the disputed land in the year 2006 and on the basis of the said Power of Attorney, Ramesh Navadiya had purchased the disputed land. When he and his brother demanded their money back, Keyur Manubhai Balar had purchased the disputed land from them vide registered Sale- deed dated 21.08.2010. He has also stated that he and his Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Sat May 02 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 02:50:24 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4457/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined brother had executed Sale-deed in favour of Keyur Manubhai Balar upon being insisted by the other co-accused as well as Keyur Manubhai Balar. From the perusal of the said statement, it prima-facie appears that the entire conspiracy was hatched to usurp the land which had been purchased by the petitioner and his wife. As stated by Jitendrabhai Waghasia in his statement, he and his brother had executed, Sale-deed in favour of Keyur Manubhai Balar upon being insisted for doing so by the other co-accused. It is the case of prosecution against the respondent no.2 that he had signed some of the aforesaid documents in the capacity of a witness and therefore, he is believed to be the part of conspiracy hatched for commission of the present offence. The learned Sessions Court in the impugned order in paragraph-13 has observed as under:
"[13] From the perusal of the record of this application, it appears that the prosecution is mainly relying on the Power of Attorney dated 03.02.2006. On perusal of the said Power of Attorney, the present applicant has simply signed as a witness. The other witness of the said document Kamlesh Patel has stated in his police statement that he never signed the said document and he does not know the parties to the Power of Attorney. During the investigation, the hand writing expert's opinion was sought for by the police and the same is produced along with the charge sheet. The hand writing expert Mr. P. K. Vasava of Directorate of Forensic Science, Hand Writing the Photographic Bureau, Gandhinagar, has opined that all the signatures in the disputed document are written by the writer of standard signatures. Hence, as per the hand writing expert report, the signature in the Power of Attorney dated Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Sat May 02 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 02:50:24 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4457/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined 03.02.2006 are genuine and not forged. Further, it is not the case of the complainant that the executors of the said Power of Attorney have not signed in the said document. When any document is executed by the original owners in their own name, it is not believable that they will forge the signature of a witness. Further, the role of the witness of the document is to confirm that the signature on the document is indeed the signature of the party, whose name appears in the document. Admittedly it is not the case of the complainant that the executors have not signed the Power of Attorney. Further, the witness of the document is not required to confirm the signature of other witness. Sometimes, it may happen that the witness may not be knowing the other witness and hence, no fault can be found against the witness."
7. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner is not in a position to dislodge the aforesaid observations of the learned Sessions Court. When the learned Sessions Court has recorded the aforesaid finding, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to show that the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Court is perverse or ex-facie contrary to law, to challenge to same. Unless it is shown to be perverse or illegal, it would be difficult for this Court to disapprove the finding.
8. Under the circumstances, no case is made out for interfering with the impugned order of the Learned Sessions Court as the petition is devoid of any merit and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J) AHS Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Sat May 02 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 02:50:24 IST 2026