The correctness of the allegations cannot be examined at the stage of quashing the FIR, considering the ongoing investigation and the prima facie establishment of the offenses.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. Aditya A. Choksi for learned advocate Mr. Vipul Sundesha for the respondent No.1 and Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Monali Bhatt for the respondent No.2 waive service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

2. The present application has been filed seeking quashing and setting aside the F.I.R. being C.R.No.I-102 of 2017 registered at Sola High Court Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”).

3. Learned advocate Mr. R.J. Goswami appearing for the applicants has submitted that the dispute is of a civil in nature and has been given the colour of criminal act. He has submitted that the applicants have not committed any forgery and they have not created any rights on the forged documents since they are the owners of the disputed land. He has submitted that the right of the ownership of the land in question is pending before the Civil Court, hence, the F.I.R. requires to be quashed.

3.1 He has further invited attention of this Court to the conditions of the agreement to sale dated 24.07.1986 and has submitted that since the conditions mentioned therein were violated, the first informant could not have the ownership of the land. He has submitted that at the relevant point of time, all the applicants were minor and the agreement to sale entered by their forefathers was illegal. He has submitted that the forgery could not have been established since the applicant No.1, whose name is there in the agreement to sale has sold the land in question to Kamlesh Bhodidas Patel, Indrajit Ranchhodbhai Desai and Pankajbhai Dharmabhai Patel on 16.03.2010 and thereafter, since the same did not materialize in the year of 2016, subsequent agreement to sale was entered. It is submitted that the complainant has already instituted Regular Civil Suit No.547 of 2016 before Civil Court (Rural), Mirzapur, Dist. Ahmedabad and the right of the disputed land is yet to be crystallized. Learned advocate has further submitted that execution of the sale deed will not amount to forgery as defined under Section 463 of the IPC.

3.2 He has submitted that the impugned F.I.R. is required to be quashed and set aside on the ground of delay. Admittedly, the first sale deed was entered into between forefathers of the applicants and the respondent No.1 in the year of 1986 and more particularly, the conditions as stated therein are violated by him. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned F.I.R. may be quashed.

3.3 In support of his submissions, learned advocate has placed reliance on the judgement rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr., (2009) 8 SCC 751.

4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Aditya A. Choksi for learned advocate Mr. Vipul Sundesha appearing for the respondent No.1-first informant has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned advocate Mr. Goswami and has submitted that at this stage, the impugned F.I.R. may not be quashed. It is submitted by the learned advocate that on 24.07.1986, registered Banakhat came to be executed between the respondent No.1 and the predecessors of the applicants for the land in question and the first informant was the rightful owner of the land in question. He has asserted that in view of the statement made by the applicant No.7, who was subsequently deleted vide order of this Court dated 01.09.2017, has supported the case of the complainant that at the relevant point of time, all the sale consideration was paid and conditions mentioned in the sale agreement were also satisfied and the land got transferred in the name of the first informant.

4.1 It is further submitted that despite the aforesaid position, the applicants sold the land in question to one Kamlesh Bhodidas Patel, Indrajit Ranchhodbhai Desai and Pankajbhai Dharmabhai Patel for the sale consideration of Rs.18,12,0