Vipul M. Pancholi, J.

This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for the sake of brevity) for quashing and setting aside the FIR being C.R.No.I-67 of 2011 registered with Vyara police station and proceedings filed pursuant thereto.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda for the applicant, learned advocate Mr. N.K. Majmudar for the respondent no.2- complainant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Devnani for the respondent-State.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Bharda has referred to the allegations made in the impugned FIR, copy of which is produced at page 23 of the compilation. The said FIR is filed for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 114 of Indian Penal Code. The impugned FIR is filed on 6.6.2011. It has been mainly alleged in the said FIR by the respondent no.2- complainant that land bearing block no.92, 93, 109/1 situated at Mouje Meghpur, Taluka Vyara, District Tapi was in the name of accused no.2 and the land bearing block no.108 situated at Mouje Meghpur Ta.Vyara, was in the name of accused no.3. The said aspect was informed to him by accused nos.1 and 3. It is also stated by concerned accused that the title of the said land is clear. The complainant therefore purchased the land in question by registered sale deed by payment of consideration on 15.4.2009 and 15.6.2009 respectively and thereby he became the owner of the land in question. It is further stated that after the execution of the sale deed, it was revealed that the accused have created the charge on the land in question and thereafter accused nos.2 and 3 executed the power of attorney in favour of accused no.1. The accused no.1, on the basis of the said power of attorney, executed agreement to sell on 29.1.2010. The same was registered and thereby accused have created forged documents and committed the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 114 of Indian Penal Code. The complainant has also referred to the pendency of civil and RTS proceedings between the parties.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Bharda thereafter submitted that the ingredients of the offences are not made out as the accused have not created any forged documents as alleged. In support of the said contention, learned advocate has referred to the documentary evidence produced along with the copy of the application. Learned advocate Mr. Bharda has contended that the agreement to sell was executed by accused no.1 as the power of attorney holder in favour of one Bharatbhai Manubhai Vadodaria on 29.1.2010. However, thereafter immediately, the said agreement to sell came to be cancelled on 18.4.2011. It is further pointed out that before the agreement to sell was executed in favour of Mr. Vadodaria, another agreement to sell was executed by the accused in favour of one Dhirubhai Haribhai Mer and Varshaben Manojsinh Parmar in the year 2008. However, the said agreement to sell was also cancelled on 31.1.2010. In the said document, the complainant Manishbhai Arvindbhai Bhakt has also signed as witness. Learned advocate has referred to all the documents produced on record.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Bharda thereafter submits that before the registration of the aforesaid FIR, the accused Jitinbhai Mohanbhai Bhakt and Diptikaben Jitinbhai Bhakt, through their power of attorney Priteshkumar Rasikbhai Bhakt, have filed Special Civil Suit No.65 of 2010 and 66 of 2010 before the court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bardoli against the complainant for cancellation of registered sale deed executed in favour of the complainant and after filing of the said civil proceedings and even revenue proceedings, the impugned FIR came to be filed with a view to pressurize the applicants-accused so that the applicants may withdraw the civil proceedings filed against the complainant. He, therefore, contended that the impugned FIR is nothing but a gross abuse of process of the Court and therefore this