SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Guj) 471

2012 (1) GLR 449
MISC. CRIMINAL APPLICATION
Before the Hon 'ble Mr. Justice J. B. Pardiwala
PRAKASH RAMCHANDRA BAROT & ORS.
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
Misc. Criminal Application No. 2780 of 2011 to quash the F.I.R. lodged at Kalol Police Station vide C.R.-I. 26 of 2011.
Decided On : 18-8-2011.

Advocates Appeared:
M. B. Gandhi with Chinmay M. Gandhi, for Applicant Nos. 1 to 5.
Mrs. Krina Calla, A.P.P., for Respondent No. 1.
B. B. ,Naik, Sr. Advocate with Rajesh K. Savjani, for Respondent No.2.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 - Seeks Quashing of FIR - Petitioners - original accused persons seek to invoke inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing F.I.R. lodged for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 447, 186, 120B and 504 of IPC- Held, Dispute related to immovable property - No substance found in allegations of complainant that accused had indulged in cheating, made a false document or criminal breach of trust - Suits in respect of same dispute pending in Civil Court - Allegations made in the F.I.R. and other material not disclosing any cognizable offence - Hence F.I.R. quashed - Application allowed

JUDGMENT

J. B. PARDIWALA, J. By way of this application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code'), the petitioners-original accused persons seek to invoke inherent powers of this Court, praying for quashing the F.I.R. lodged at Kalol Police Station vide C.R.-I. No. 26 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Secs. 406. 420, 465, 467, 468, 471,447, 186. 120 B and 504 of I.P.C.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief can be summarised as under :

(1) On 16th February. 2011 respondent No.2 - the first informant lodged a report with Kalol Police Station alleging that since past two years he is serving as a Secretary in a society called Blue Diamond Cooperative Housing Society Limited, which is situated in the sill1 of village Sanavad.

(2) It is stated that the Society was registered on 16th June, 1982 in the office of the District Registrar, Mehsana. It is further stated that the Society owns land bearing Survey Nos. 113/3, 114, 123/1, 124, 125/1, 125/2 and 125/3. All these survey numbers were ordered to be consolidated vide Order No. 3203 of 1999 dated 18th September, 1999 passed by the Mamlatdar, Kalol. The consolidated area admeasures about 8 Hectares 49 Aare 84 Gunthas. The consolidated survey number/block number of the land in question is 113/3.

(3) It is further stated in the F.I.R. that the land in question is vacant as no construction has been put up so far. It is alleged that at the relevant. point of time the owners of the said land had executed registered sale deed in favour of the Society after accepting full-sale consideration. Since then, the land is running in the name of the Society in the records of the Panchayat.

(4) It is alleged in the F. 1. R. that the Society apprehended some problem with respect to the land bearing Survey No. 123/1 at the end of the original owners in collusion with the accused persons herein. For this reason, the Society thought fit to institute Regular Civil Suit No. 19 of 1996 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Kalol on 25th January, 1996 for injunction restraining the original owners of the land and the accused persons herein from disturbing the possession of the Society. It appears as per the F.I.R. that initially order of status quo was passed by the Civil Court on 6th March, 1998. It is further stated in the F. I.R. that the original owners and the accused persons also claimed right, title and interest over Survey No. 123/1 by filing Regular Civil Suit No. 166 of 1996 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Kalol. It is further averred in the F.I.R. that the original owners and the accused persons prayed for injunction below Application Exh. 5, which was refused by the Civil Court. It is alleged that in spite of this position the original owners and the accused persons, in company of some anti-social elements, entered into the land and for this reason the Society thought fit to get the land measured through D.I.L.R., Gandhinagar after making payment of the requisite fee of Rs. 6,600-00.

(5) On 16th February, 2011 the members of the Society tried to get the land measured with police protection and at that point of time accused No. 1 herein raised an objection that the Society cannot get the land measured through D.I.L.R. as they are not the owners of the land but accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the true owners of the land. It is further alleged that accused Nos. 1 and 2 got a registered sale-deed executed on 6th September, 1995 with respect to the disputed land from the original owners i. e. accused Nos. 4 and 5. It is the case of the first informant that this sale-deed dated 6th September, 1995 is a bogus sale-deed. It is alleged that earlier there was already a sale-deed executed in favour of the Society and for the same land on 6th September, 1995 accused Nos. 1 and 2 got a registered sale-deed executed in their favour from the original owners, and thereby, the Society has been put to loss and the original owners of the land have thereby committed criminal breach of

















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top