2019 Supreme(Guj) 360
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.P. THAKER, J.
Ritaben Dolarrai Raval W/o Parindra Kanaiyalal Bhagat & Others - Appellants
Versus
State of Gujarat & Others - Respondents
R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 9988 of 2017
Decided On : 29-04-2019
For the Appellant :Mr. Shalin Mehta, Senior Advocate With Rohan Lavkumar
For the Respondent: Ms. Monali Bhatt, App., Mr. Ambrish V Jani
Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482, Indian Penal Code,1860, Sections 406, 420 and 120-B, 415, 156(1), 155(2) -Land Revenue Code, Section 135D -Filing this application under Section of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicants-original accused and have prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being registered with Police Station District for the offences under Sections and of the Indian Penal Code -Applicants that they are arraigned as accused in the impugned complaint filed by respondent that they are third purchaser of the land in question for which necessary stamp duty is paid and necessary entries were posted and certified by the revenue authorities -It is contended that no civil suit is filed challenging the sale deed of the applicants -Held, -It also reveals that during the pendency of the suit public notice was issued and in the sale deed there was a mention of pendency of the civil suit -It is trite law that if any transaction is made and during the pendency of the suit is registered with the Registrar then in that case any transaction of the property pending the civil suit will be binding to the new purchaser -Admittedly in this case no lis pendens is registered -Mere pendency of the suit will not affect the subsequent transaction of the suit land -If anybody is aggrieved by the said sale transaction and the entries made thereof in the revenue -One has to take recourse under the civil law and to bye-pass civil remedy invocation of criminal law cannot be permitted -Even considering the allegations and averments made in the FIR and the submissions made on behalf of original complainant it cannot be said that the ingredients of Section and are satisfied qua the present applicants and the dispute between the parties, at the most can be said to be of civil nature and it is tried to be converted into criminal dispute -As such this Court is of the opinion that continuing the criminal proceedings against the present applicants would be an abuse of process of law -Present petition deserves to be allowed.
1. By filing this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants-original accused nos.28 and 29 have prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R.No.I-101 of 2016 registered with Bavla Police Station, District-Ahmedabad, for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. It is the case of the applicants that they are arraigned as accused nos.28 and 29 in the impugned complaint filed by respondent no.2 on 28.7.2016 that they are third purchaser of the land in question for which necessary stamp duty is paid and necessary entries were posted and certified by the revenue authorities. It is contended that no civil suit is filed challenging the sale deed of the applicants. It is also contended that names of the applicants have been posted in the revenue records after following due procedure under Section 135D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and no RTS proceedings are pending and those entries are not challenged by anyone.
2.1 It is contended that the gist of impugned complaint is that the complainant wanted to open a petrol pump at Bavla, and for that, Reliance Industries Company Limited had also given him permission and since land was required for opening the petrol pump, the complainant hold talks with land owners of various parcels of lands. That the lands originally belonged to 25 persons and they have given General Power of Attorney to four persons and on the basis of said Power of Attorney those four persons had entered into an agreement to sell with the complainant on 28.4.2006.
2.2 On 9.1.2007, eight owners of land bearing Survey No.1266 and 1267 had executed an agreement to sell with the complainant. That the original owner of the land, viz. Aminabibi, original accused no.1 and 24 other persons had given power of attorney dated 31.3.2006 in favour of four persons and, on the basis of this power of attorney, the land bearing Survey No.1072 was sold to one Bhikhubhai Ahmedbhai Vohra by sale deed dated 3.4.2006 and that fact was never disclosed to the complainant by the original land owners.
2.3 That land bearing Survey Nos.1265, 1266, 1267 and 1073 situated at Village-Bavla were also sold by sale deed dated 13.8.2007 and that sale deed was reflected in the revenue records by revenue entry No.13305 dated 5.10.2007. That other co-owners of Survey No.1073, 1265, 1266 and 1267 had also sold the lands to some other persons viz. Baldevbhai Dwarkaprasad Prajapati by registered sale deed dated 15.10.2007. That seven persons out of aforesaid 25 persons had sold their part of the land, which was remaining to be sold of Survey No.1073, 1265, 1266 and 1267 by registered sale deed dated 17.6.2010 to the present applicants. That another sale deed was entered into by Baldevbhai Dwarkaprasad Prajapati on 15.2.2010 for sale of Survey No.1073, 1065, 1066 and 1067 to the applicants herein. That one Lalumiya Ahmedmiya, who has also share in the land bearing Survey No.1065, 1066 and 1067, sold his share in the land by a registered sale deed dated 17.6.2011 to the present applicants. That for the lands bearing Survey Nos.1072, 1073 and 1065, there was an agreement to sell in favour of the complainant and that the complainant had paid consideration for the same and that ignoring the agreement to sell, the lands in question were sold to different persons by the registered sale deeds and, for that purpose, the complainant has lodged the aforesaid complaint against many persons, which includes present applicants.
2.4 It is contended by the applicants that considering the contents of the complaint, no offence could be said to have been committed by them. They are the legal and rightful owners of the land in question by way of a registered sale deed, which is certified by the revenue authorities. It is contended that they have not committed the alleged offence and the entire FIR has been filed only with a view to pressurize them. According to the applicants, filing of the impugn