[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Keyur Manubhai Balar vs State Of Gujarat on 1 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4942/2018 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. 4942 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
KEYUR MANUBHAI BALAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ANSHIN DESAI, Senior Advocate with MR.NANDISH H THACKAR(7008)
for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS DIVYANGNA JHALA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
CAV JUDGMENT
1. By filing the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India read with Section 239 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 and/or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing
and setting aside the order dated 23.04.2018
passed by the learned 8th Additional Sessions
Judge, Surat below in Criminal Revision Application
No.289/2017 (Annexure-A) and be further pleased
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4942/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026
undefined
to discharge the petitioner from in connection with
Criminal Case No.16636/2012 pending in the court
of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat;
B) Pending admission, hearing and/or final
disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be
pleased stay the further proceedings of Criminal
Case No.16636/2012 pending in the court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat;
C) Such other and further orders as Your
Lordships may deem just, fit and expedient be
passed in favour of the petitioner."
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to filing of the
petition are such that the FIR being I-C.R. No.777 of 2008 came
to be registered with Umra police station, Surat city for the
offences punishable under Sections 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 further investigation, the investigating agency filed
charge-sheet against the accused including the petitioner.
Thereafter, present petitioner preferred an application for
discharge before the learned Trial Court vide Exhibit-16 in
Criminal Case No.1666 of 2012. The learned Trial Court
dismissed the said application vide order dated 23.01.2015.
Against which, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing
Criminal Revision Application No.170 of 2015. This Court, vide
order dated 01.02.2017 allowed the said revision application and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4942/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026
undefined
remanded the matter back to the learned Trial Court for
reconsideration by observing that the order passed by the
learned Trial Court is an unreasoned order. Learned Trial Court
upon remand of the matter reconsidered the application and vide
order dated 15.05.2017 dismissed the application filed by the
petitioner for discharge. Against the said order, the petitioner
approached the learned Sessions Court, Surat by filing the
Criminal Revision Application No.289 of 2017. Learned Sessions
Court dismissed the said revision application vide order dated
23.04.2018. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with both the
aforesaid orders, the petitioner has approached this Court by
filing the present petition.
3. Heard learned Senior Advocate Shri. Anshin H. Desai
appearing with learned advocate Shri. Nandhish H. Thackar for
the petitioner. He submitted that as per the FIR itself, the
incident alleged in the FIR had taken place in the year 2006
whereas the FIR came to be lodged in the year 2008. The
investigating agency carried out the investigation and had
submitted a C-Summary Report. Therefore, the investigating
agency had not found any substance in the FIR lodged by the
respondent no.2 herein. It was only after the C-Summary Report
was rejected by the learned Trial Court and further investigation
was ordered, the investigating agency submitted the charge-
sheet against the accused persons including the present
petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner herein is not named
as an accused in the FIR. It is the case of prosecution that the
original landowner had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of
one Hanskamal Grover who expired on 08.08.2000. As per the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4942/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026
undefined
settled law, the document of Power of Attorney would not exist
after the demise of the attorney. He further submitted that it is
mentioned in the FIR that an Agreement to Sell was executed in
favour of respondent no.2 herein. Mere execution of an
Agreement to Sell would not confer any title over the property to
respondent no.2. He further submitted that a suit for specific
performance of Agreement to Sell was filed against the original
owner being Special Civil Suit No.273 of 2002, wherein, the
Learned Civil Court had granted no injunction and under the
circumstances, if the original landowners had executed a Power
of Attorney in favour of any other person, it would not amount to
commission of an offence of criminal breach of trust or cheating.
He further submitted that the petitioner herein had purchased
the disputed land by a Sale-deed vide dated 21.08.2010 by
paying the amount of consideration worth Rs.33.10 lakhs from
one Jitendra Shamjibhai and Rameshbhai Shamjibhai. The FIR
in question was lodged for the incident which had taken place
prior to registration of the offence and therefore, it is an admitted
position that no offence was committed on the date on which the
petitioner purchased the property in question vide registered
Sale-deed. The petitioner herein is a bona-fide purchaser and
interestingly, the persons from whom the petitioner had
purchased the disputed property have not been arraigned as an
accused in the present case for the reasons best known to the
prosecution. He further submitted that the dispute involved in
the present case is purely of a civil nature which is sought to be
converted into an offence by respondent no.2 by lodging the
present FIR. There is no material whatsoever connecting the
petitioner with the offence which is reported in the FIR dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4942/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026
undefined
17.09.2008. He further submitted that an Agreement to Sell
purportedly executed by Hanskamal Grover in favour of Ritaben
Desai wife of Nareshbhai Desai does not bear the signature of
the said Hanskamal Grover. The said agreement to sell was
purportedly executed in favour of the wife of respondent no.2 on
02.07.1999 on the basis of the Power of Attorney executed by the
original owner of the land Gandabhai Govanbhai Patel. However,
the Power of Attorney in question had already been cancelled by
the original landowner with effect from 04.06.1992 and
therefore, Hanskamal Grover had no authority or power to
execute any Agreement to Sell after 04.06.1992. He further
submitted that Hanskamal Grover had two wives and both the
wives had initially given consent to the heirs of the original
owner of the land for sale of the disputed parcel of land in favour
of other persons. Thereafter, one of the wives of Hanskamal
Grover namely Ramaben retracted from the consent given by her
earlier on 06.06.2011. However, in the interregnum, the
petitioner had already purchased the disputed property by
Registered Sale-deed dated 21.08.2010. It is the case of
prosecution that the consent of the wife of Hanskamal Grover
namely Ramaben given on 10.01.2006 had been forged. However
she has not come forward to lodge any FIR in that regard. He
further submitted that the petitioner is sought to be dragged in
the present offence simply because he is related to the other co-
accused. Even if it is believed for the sake of argument that the
petitioner has committed any wrong, at best, it can be said to be
a civil wrong and it cannot be said to be an offence. He therefore
submitted to allow the present petition and quash and set aside
the orders impugned in the present petition and discharged the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4942/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026
undefined
petitioner of the offence in question. Learned Senior Advocate
has sought to rely upon the following judgments in support of
his submissions:
1) In case of Ram Prakash Chadha Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2024) 10
Supreme Court Cases 651 passed the Hon'ble
Apex Court.
2) In case of Jaydip Dineshchandra Joshi
Versus State of Gujarat in Special Criminal
Application No.8052 of 2019 passed by the
Hon'ble Hight Court of Gujarat.
4. Learned APP has opposed the present petition contending
that there are concurrent findings recorded of a prime-facie case
against the petitioner by the learned Trial Court as well as by the
learned Sessions Court and therefore, the scope for his Court to
interfere with the concurrent findings is very limited. He further
submitted that the petitioner herein is implicated in the present
case with the help of Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
The material available on record clearly indicates that the
petitioner herein was very much part of the conspiracy hatched
for commission of the present offence. He therefore submitted to
dismiss the present petition.
5. Learned advocate Shri. P. P. Majmudar appearing for
respondent no.2 has also opposed the present petition. He
submitted that prior to filing the present petition, the petitioner
had approached this Court by filing Special Criminal Application
No.1008 of 2012. By filing the said petition, the petitioner had
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4942/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026
undefined
prayed for quashing of the charge-sheet filed by the investigating
agency against him. The Coordinate Bench of this Court had
dismissed the said application vide order dated 25.10.2013. He
further submitted that on 21.11.2006, one Babubhai Gabani
had executed a sale deed in favour of co-accused Ramesh
Navadiya on the basis of Power of Attorney executed in his
favour by the heirs of the original owner and for the said
purpose, the wife of Hanskamal Grover namely Ramaben had
given her consent. Ramaben Grover, in her statement given
before the investigating agency on 25.03.2012, has categorically
stated that she had not given any consent letter to Rameshbhai
Navadiya and she had not signed any such consent letter and
the consent letter in question in her name was forged. On
03.04.2007, Rameshbhai Navadiya sold the disputed land to one
Nathabhai Jivani. Thereafter, on 25.03.2008, Nathabhai Jivani
sold 50% of the disputed land to Jitendrabhai and Rameshbhai
Waghasia and sold other 50% of the land to Jayesh Balar. He
further submitted that it has come on record that both Jitendra
Waghasia and Ramesh Waghasia were assured that the titles of
the land were clear. However, after having purchased the land,
Jitendrabhai Waghasia and Rameshbhai Waghasia came to
know that several litigations were going on as regards the
disputed land and therefore, they again approached the accused
saying that they did not want the disputed land and demanded
their money back and they were assured by the accused that
they would get the titles of the land cleared. Ultimately, they had
sold the disputed land to the present petitioner vide Sale-deed
dated 21.08.2010. He further submitted that the petitioner
herein is closely related to the other co-accused and he was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4942/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026
undefined
sitting in the office of Balar Exports with the other co-accused
and therefore, it is clear that the petitioner had actively
participated in hatching the conspiracy for commission of the
present offence. He further submitted that as per the settled law,
while considering the application for discharge, the Court has to
consider as to whether material sufficient to prosecute the
accused is available on record or not. The Court is not required
to consider whether the material available on record against the
accused is sufficient to convict him. He therefore submitted to
dismiss the petition. Learned advocate has sought to rely upon
the following judgments in support of his submissions:
1) In case of State of Rajasthan Versus Ashok
Kumar Kashyap reported in (2021) Supreme
Court Cases 191 passed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court.
2) In case of Central Bureau of Investigation
Versus Aryan Singh etc. reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 379 passed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court.
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 in question 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4942/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026
undefined
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
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, petitioner and Hanskamal Grover
came into contact with each other and Hanskamal Grover had
offered to sell the disputed land to respondent No.2. Resultantly,
respondent No.2 agreed to purchase the disputed land from Anil
Taneja by paying full consideration to Anil Taneja and the
original owner. It is the case of prosecution that respondent No.2
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 respondent No.2.
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 also been purchased by Hanskamal Grover.
Since respondent No.2 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4942/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026
undefined
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 land and demanded their money back.
Thereafter, the disputed land was purchased by the present
petitioner 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 sale and purchase of land in his
office named Balar Exports and therefore, he and his brother
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4942/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026
undefined
happened to visit the office of Nathabhai Ranchodbhai Jivani.
The perusal of the statement of the said Jitendra indicates that
the petitioner herein happens to be in close relation 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 respondent
No.2 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, the
petitioner had purchased the disputed land from them vide
registered Sale-deed dated 21.08.2010. He has also stated that
he and his brother had executed Sale-deed in favour of the
petitioner upon being insisted by the other co-accused as well as
the petitioner. 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 respondent No.2 and his
wife. As stated by Jitendrabhai Waghasia in his statement, he
and his brother had executed, Sale-deed in favour of the
petitioner upon being insisted for doing so by the petitioner and
the other co-accused. This aspect gives reason to believe that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4942/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026
undefined
petitioner herein was also part of conspiracy which was hatched
for commission of the offence in question.
7. It is pertinent to note that after rejection of the C-Summary
Report submitted by the investigating agency, the further
investigation was carried out and charge-sheet was filed against
the accused including the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner
had approached this Court by filing Special Criminal Application
No.1008 of 2012 challenging the FIR as well as the charge-sheet
and the Coordinate Bench of this Court had dismissed the said
petition vide order dated 25.10.2013. The perusal of the order
dated 25.10.2013 indicates that almost all the contentions which
are sought to be canvassed in the present petition were
canvassed during the course of hearing of the earlier petition.
This Court in its order dated 25.10.2013 had made the following
observations:
"16. Nonetheless, at this stage, when the court is
considering a quashing petition after the charge-sheet has
been filed, it would be relevant for the court to look into all
the charge-sheet papers to examine whether there is any
material to substantiate such allegation of forgery, thereby
justifying invocation of the provisions of 465, 467, 468 and
471 of the Indian Penal Code. In this regard, a perusal of
the documents on record reveal that the power of attorney
has been executed by the heirs of the original owners in
favour of Babubhai Manjibhai Gabani, based upon consent
letters given by Kaminiben and Ramaben, the widows of
Hans Kamal Grover. However, Ramaben Hans Kamal
Grover has in her statement before the police stated that
she has not executed any such consent letter and that
Rameshbhai Navadia has fabricated such consent letter
without her knowledge. Thus, there is material on record to
suggest that the consent letter issued by Ramaben Hans
Kamal Grover has been fabricated. Under the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4942/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026
undefined
circumstances, even if it were to be accepted that the power
of attorney executed by the heirs of the original owner, is
not a forged document, the material on record does reveal
that the consent letter issued by Ramaben is a forged one.
Therefore, at this stage, while considering a petition for
quashing, prior to the framing of the charge, it is not
possible for the court to say that the offence of forgery is
not made out on the material on record.
17. Insofar as the offence of cheating as envisaged under
section 420 IPC is concerned, on the allegations made in
the first information report, it is apparent that the original
owner and his heirs had induced the first informant to part
with valuable consideration, prior to giving up their rights
in the disputed land. However, thereafter, the original
owners have backed out and have executed another power
of attorney for execution by a sale deed in favour of
Rameshbhai Navadia, in breach of the agreement with the
first informant. Under the circumstances, at this stage it
cannot be said that the accused, right from the inception,
did not have any intention of cheating the first informant,
so as to rule out commission of the offence under section
420 IPC.
18. As regard commission of the offence under section 406
IPC, on the allegations made in the first information report,
it is apparent that an agreement had been entered into
between the original land owner and his heirs and the first
informant - Hans Kamal Grover and Anil Taneja to the
effect that the first informant would pay consideration to
the original owner and Anil Taneja whereupon the original
owners and Anil Taneja would give up all right, title and
interest in the subject land. It was pursuant to such
agreement that the consideration had been paid by the first
informant to the original owners and Anil Taneja. However,
since at the relevant time, it was not possible to transfer
the land, a power of attorney came to be executed in favour
of Hans Kamal Grover. However, upon the death of Hans
Kamal Grover the heirs of the original land owner sold the
land to Ramesh Navadia. Thus, it cannot be stated that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4942/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026
undefined
offence of criminal breach of trust as envisaged under
section 406 IPC is not made out.
19. On behalf of the petitioner in Special Criminal
Application No.1008/2012, it has been contended that he
is a bonafide purchaser who has purchased the land from
the third purchaser. That originally, the land was
purchased by Rameshbhai Navadia who in turn had sold
the land to Nathabhai Ranchhodbhai Jivani. Nathabhai
Ranchhodbhai Jivani had sold 50% of the land to Jitendra
Shamjibhai Vaghasia and Rameshbhai Shamjibhai
Vaghasia, from whom the said petitioner had purchased
the land with valuable consideration. In this regard, though
in the first information report, no allegation has been made
against the said petitioner, in the charge-sheet, he has
been arraigned as accused No.7. From the statement of
Jitendra Shamjibhai Vaghasia recorded on 24th March,
2012 by the Investigating Officer, it is revealed that
Nathabhai Ranchodbhai Jivani along with his group and
relatives sits at the office by the name of Balar Exports and
all of them are engaged in the business of sale and
purchase of land. The said Jitendrabhai along with his
brother Rameshbhai, time and again used to visit their
office (Balar Exports), where Nathabhai Ranchodbhai
Jivani, Nathabhai's brother-in-law Manubhai Jivrajbhai
Balar's son Keyur, Keyur's paternal uncle's son Jayesh
Govind Balar and Keyur's maternal uncle Ramesh
Vithalbhai Navadia as well as Keyur and Jayesh's fathers'
first cousin Babubhal Gabani were all closely connected
with each other and together used to handle the business
of dealing in land as partners. That it was at the instance
of all the accused that he and his brother had purchased
the disputed land and it was when they found that the title
of the land was not clear and that civil proceedings were
pending in respect thereof, that they had approached the
said accused persons, and at their instance they had sold
the land to the petitioner -Keyurbhai Balar, who was also
one of their accomplices. Thus, in the present case when
section 120B IPC has been invoked, having regard to the
material on record, it cannot be stated that the offences as
alleged in the first information report are not made out.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4942/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026
undefined
Under the circumstances, no case has been made out so as
to warrant interference in exercise of powers under section
482 of the Code."
8. Thus, the Coordinate Bench had observed that there
existed a strong prima-facie case against the petitioner for
commission of the offence in question. This Court had also
referred to the materials collected during the course of
investigation for recording its findings as regards prima-facie
case against the petitioner.
9. In view of these facts, the learned Trial Court as well as the
learned Sessions Court cannot be said to have committed any
error in passing the orders impugned in the present petition.
Hence, the present petition stands dismissed being devoid of any
merit. Rule is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier stands
vacated.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
AHS
