IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Cheating, forgery and conspiracy – Criminal process cannot be permitted to become a weapon of harassment and coercion in disputes concerning title over immovable property.
(2) When a person executes a document claiming property as his own, there is no making of a false document merely because claim is ultimately found to be incorrect.
(3) A disputed civil claim cannot automatically be treated as fraudulent representation so as to attract Section 420 of IPC.

JUDGMENT

VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 07.11.2023 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 780 of 2010 and Special Criminal Application No. 620 of 2010, whereby the High Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the CrPC”) for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated at the instance of respondent No. 2.

3. SLP (Crl.) No. 15537 of 2023 was filed by accused Nos. 3 and 4 and SLP (Crl.) No. 16049 of 2023 was filed by accused No. 6. Since the appeals arise from a common judgment and involve interconnected facts and issues, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

4. The brief facts as per the appellants are that the land bearing Survey No. 157 situated at Village Panas admeasuring approximately 5.5 acres was jointly purchased on 03.06.1957 by the six children of Nemabhai Patel, including the father of the appellants, Govindbhai Patel and the father of respondent No. 2, Chhaganbhai Patel. As per respondent No. 2, the said property belonged exclusively to his Hindu Undivided Family.

5. A settlement decree dated 21.07.1987 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 339/1985 was never acted upon and became unenforceable by limitation under Article 136 of the Limitation Act. Thereafter, on 19.02.1988, the competent authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the ULC Act”) recognised ?rd shares in favour of the branch of appellants and respondent No. 2, thereby overriding the earlier settlement decree under Section 42 of the ULC Act. According to the appellants, this order was never challenged by respondent No. 2.

6. It is the case of the appellants that respondent No. 2 thereafter procured a fraudulent compromise decree dated 28.11.1988 in Special Civil Suit No. 176/1988 by using a fictitious person described as “Kishorbhai Govindbhai Patel” and forged compromise documents. Based on the said decree, Mutation Entry No. 2183 dated 01.06.1991 was mutated in the revenue records without following the prescribed procedure under the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879.

7. The appellants instituted Special Civil Suit No. 377/2000 on 05.08.2000 seeking declaration of their ?rd share in the property. In the said suit, the High Court of Gujarat granted ad-interim injunction on 20.02.2002, which was subsequently made absolute on 22.07.2003. It is the case of the appellants that in the written statement filed by respondent No. 2 on 12.09.2000, he claimed exclusive ownership solely on the basis of the fraudulent 1988 decree and no allegation of criminal intimidation, extortion or forgery was made against the appellants at that stage.

8. On 01.11.2001, accused nos. 1 to 5 executed a Power of Attorney in favour of accused no. 6 for conducting the civil proceedings. According to the appellants, the execution of the Power of Attorney was consistently affirmed before various courts and was never disputed by respondent No. 2 during the civil litigation.

9. Subsequently, on 13.04.2003, the Mamlatdar lodged FIR No. 136/2003 against respondent No. 2 in relation to forgery committed in the ULC Act proceedings and the fraudulent decree obtained in Special Civil Suit No. 176/1988, pursuant to which a chargesheet came to be filed on 10.08.2004.

10. It is the case of the appellants that despite the subsisting injunction order operating in their favour, respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint after a delay of about nine years before the DCB Police Station on 21.05.2009 without making any allegation of extortion or monetary demand. Thereafter, suppressing the earlier complaint, respondent No. 2 lodged another complaint before the Special Operations Group, which came to be registered as FIR No. I-CR No. 504/2009 on 31.12.2009, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 504, 120B, 384, 511 and 144 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter re