Important Point:
a) When dispute is found to be civil in nature and pending before the competent court, the complaint requires to be quashed and set aside.b) Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself.c) Determination of steps to define the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC :Step one : whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?Step two : whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false?Step three : whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?

1. The present application has been filed by the applicants/original accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity “CrPC) praying to quash and set aside the complaint, being Criminal Inquiry Case No. 17 of 2011 registered with the court of learned JMFC, Radhanpur, which is culminated in FIR registered with Radhanpur Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance of a deed of mortgage dated 25th March, 1963, the father of the complainant namely Koli Kama Mehta, mortgaged a piece of agricultural land, bearing revenue survey no. 193/2 admeasuring acre 8 guntha 25 of village Dev, Taluka: Radhanpur in favour of the father of the applicants no. 1 and 2 and grand father of the applicants no.3 and 4 namely Ramabhai Hemrajbhai Patel for Rs. 800/-. That, the actual physical possession of the mortgaged land was handed over on the date of execution of the aforesaid deed and as per such deed, six years period was prescribed for repayment and it was further stipulated that on the repayment of mortgaged money and other amounts, the mortgagee will redeem the mortgaged property and returned the physical possession of the mortgaged property. That subsequently, mortgagor Kamabhai Methabhai received Rs. 100/- more and as such, sold the land to the mortgagee Ramabhai Hemrajbhai Patel. An entry No. 278 in the village form no. VI to that effect was mutated on 5th July, 1963. The son of Manji Hari raised an objection against the entry. That, the land in question has come in the share of Lala Rama and Lala Rama is using, occupying and cultivating the land in question since more than 30 years and accordingly entry No. 478 was mutated in village form No.VI on 10th March, 1973 and certified on 24th February 1974. In the year 1975, a proceeding u/s. 84C was initiated by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Radhanpur. But, after due inquiry, the proceedings were dropped. An entry No. 520 to that effect was mutated on 20.09.1975 in village form No.6 and it was certified. In village form No. 7/12, name of the applicant no.3 was recorded since many years. That, notice under section 135D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code was served upon the father of Opponent no.2 namely Koli Kama Metha on 05th July, 1963. The statements of the mortgagor and the mortgagee were recorded on the same day by the then Talati cum Mantri, Bandhwad. That, the opponent no.2 despite having knowledge about all these facts with, an ulterior motive, he lodged a private complaint on 20th July, 2011 alleging inter alia that the land known as Patdo, bearing Survey No. 193/2 has been mortgaged on 25th March, 1963 for Rs. 800/- and because of their weak financial condition, the land remained mortgaged. The applicants, in connivance of each other, have got the land mutated in their names as the owner. That, the amount of mortgage money was offered to the applicants, but the applicants refused to accept the same and created forged documents of title in connivance with each other. That, the actual possession and occupation of the land has remained with the applicant no.3 all throughout and the applicants no. 1 to 4 in collusion and connivance with Talati-cum-Mantri have got the land in their name as owner and thereafter, the applicants concerned sold the land to the applicants no.5.

2.1 It has also been alleged that on 28th June, 2011, the opponent no.2 sent the amount of Rs. 800/- ie., the mortgage by money order and submitted a complaint before Radhanpur Police on 20th December, 2008 but no actions were taken and hence the private complaint was filed in the court of the learned JMFC, Radhanpur on 20th July, 2011. That, learned JMFC ordered PSI, Radhanpur to report within 30 days as to what steps are taken on the complaint of opponent no.2 and in the meanwhile stayed the proceedings of private complaint u/s. 210 CrPC. On perusing the report submitted by the PSI, Radhanpur, learned