IMPORTANT POINT
Mere pendency of suit cannot be made a ground for quashing criminal proceedings – Entire prosecution story could not be disbelieved on the ground of delay.

JUDGMENT (CAV)

At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Parthiv B. Shah submits that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the applicant No.1-Kantilal Maganlal Shah has passed away and, therefore, he does not press this application and seeks permission to withdraw the same qua the applicant No.1. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of as withdrawn qua the applicant No.1- Kantilal Maganlal Shah.

2. By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the first information report being Criminal Inquiry Case No.05 of 2014 which is now registered as M.Case No.01 of 2014 before the Jetpur Police Station, Vadodara Rural for the offence punishable under sections 465, 467, 471, 406, 420 and 114 of the IPC.

3. The factual matrix of the case, in a nutshell, is that the dispute involved in the present case is with regard to the ancestral property of the complainant and the applicant. The complainant happens to be the sister of the applicant. It is alleged by the complainant the applicant, with a view to deprive her right as well as the rights of the legal heirs of her one of the brothers Jayantibhai, has forged the signature of the complainant as well as her brother Jayantibhai upon some significant documents including her statement said to have been made by her before the Talati dated 25.07.1975 as well as the notice under Section 135(D) of the Land Revenue Code dated 01.01.1986 and thereby has tried to deprive the rights of the complainant as well as the legal heirs of one of her brothers Jayantibhai from their ancestral property. It is also alleged that at the time of creating such documents, the complainant was even not present before the concerned authority and was performing her public duties at her office. Even Jayantibhai was not present on such dates and was also performing his duties at District: Vardhagam, Maharashtra. It is further alleged in the complainant, having come to know about such documents being submitted by the applicant before the competent revenue authorities in her name, the complainant immediately obtained copy of the said documents from the concerned revenue authorities and sent the same to the FSL for getting the opinion of the handwriting expert, which was received on 07.03.2014, and as per the said opinion, the signatures upon the documents are forged one and does not belong to the complainant as well as his brother Jayantibhai. It is also alleged in the complaint after getting deleted the name of the complainant as well as her brother Jayantibhai from the revenue record, the applicant has sold out their ancestral property to the third person by way of a registered sale deed, for which, civil proceedings for declaring such sale deed as null and void as well as for permanent injunction were initiated by the complainant as well as the heirs of her brother Jayantibhai, which is pending in the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Pavi- Jetpur. R.T.S. Appeal Nos.65 of 2013 and 77 of 2013 were also filed by the complainant before the Dy. Collector, Chhota Udepur, which is also pending for final adjudication. With this sort of allegations, initially, a written complaint was made by the complainant to the Police Sub-Inspector, Jetpur Pavi Police Station, however, as the Police Sub-Inspector declined to lodge the FIR, the complainant had approached the Dy.S.P., Chhota Udepur, which came to be registered as Outward No.424 and a direction was issued to the concerned police sub-inspector to initiate inquiry as regards the grievance of the complainant. Thereafter, time and again, the complainant sought details about the status of his complaint from the concerned police sub-inspector, however, he was informed by the police subinspector that no further procedure is required to be initiated in respect of her complaint. Hence, the complainant has lodged the impugned complaint.

4. Learned advocate Mr.