N.V. Anjaria, J.

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.B. Dabhi waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State, whereas learned advocate Mr. N.K. Majmudar waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No. 2-original complainant.

1.1 By filing the present petition, the petitioner-original accused No. 2 has prayed for quashing the First Information Report bearing Crime Register No. I-146 of 2013 registered on 25th April, 2013 with Gorva Police Station, Vadodara City.

2. The First Information Report in question alleges offences under Section 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. Adverting to the contents of and allegations in the First Information Report, they related to the transactions in respect of land bearing revenue Survey Nos. 144 and 156, T.P. Scheme Final Plot No. 633 of Village Gorva, Taluka District Vadodara. It was stated that the original owner of the land was one Desaibhai Babubhai, who by executing a Will, gave the land to his daughter Punjiben. Upon death of Punjiben, by law of succession, land property came to one Mohanbhai Harmanbhai Padhiyar and Mangalbhai Harmanbhai Padhiyar. One third share from the property was given to Savitaben Padhiyar by said Punjiben by way of Will, as the Punjiben had no daughter and Savitaben had been staying with Punjiben during her life time.

3.1 The complainant stated that he was contacted by said Savitaben Padhiyar and her family members for sale of the said land in the year 1992, upon which the complainant showed interest in purchasing the same. A registered Banakhat dated 14TH May, 1992 was executed and the amount towards consideration was paid. It appears that the first informant filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 625 of 1991 against said Savitaben for compliance of the conditions of the Banakhat. The suit was compromised outside the Court and a consent decree was passed. It was alleged that entire share of amount of consideration to the Savitaben was paid to her and a writing dated 29th September, 1998 was also executed by said Savitaben and her family members acknowledging the receipt of money. It appears that another Civil Suit No. 1137 of 1998 was also instituted, which too was compromised. Thereafter, in pursuance to the agreement dated 14th May, 1992, two sale deeds came to be executed in respect of the land property.

3.2 The F.I.R. alleged that when the complainant wanted to construct over the property and for that purpose gave an advertisement for title-clearance certificate in the newspaper on 30th September, 2012, objection was received from the present applicant. In favour of the present applicant said Savitaben had executed agreement to sell dated 14th June, 2007 which was a registered agreement. The complainant therefore claimed that though earlier she had become owner of the property, agreement to sell was executed by said Savitaben in favour of the applicant.

3.3 The present applicant who is the holder of the agreement to sell dated 14th June, 2007 is arraigned as accused No. 2 in the First Information Report. Accused No. 1 is Savitaben. It is to be appreciated whether for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the arraignment of the present applicant in the F.I.R. could be said to be proper and whether the offences alleged are made out.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr. P.P. Majmudar for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1-State and learned advocate for respondent No. 2-original complainant, at length.

4.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that offences as alleged were not made out and the essential ingredients for Sections 467, 468, 471, IPC, are not at all satisfied, nor that of Sections 406, 420, IPC are met with. In order to make good the submission that the offences of forgery etc. was not made out, learned advocate for the petitioner relied on decision o