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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
