Point of Law:
while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.

ORDER :

1. Rule. This group of matters are in relation to FIR registered at Dholera Police Station, Ahmedabad (Rural), District : Ahmedabad as C.R. No. I – 50 of 2018.

2. Along with these matters, Special Criminal Application No.11100 of 2018 was filed and was proceeded with the captioned matters. It appears from the record that the complainant of I – C.R. No.50 of 2018 Piyushbhai Bhodilal Shah had moved Misc. Criminal Application (Direction) No.1 of 2019 in Criminal Misc. Application No.23274 of 2018 and Criminal Misc. Application (Fixing Date of Early Hearing) No.2 of 2019 in Special Criminal Application No.11100 of 2018. Both the Criminal Application No.1 of 2019 and 2 of 2019 stood disposed of on 25.04.2019. It appears that by some bonafide inadvertence, on disposal of the referred Criminal Misc. Application, Special Criminal Application No.11100 of 2018 was shown as disposed of. Learned advocate, Mr. Vipul B. Sundesha, for the applicant of Special Criminal Application No.11100 of 2018 moved a Note on 28.07.2020 to place Special Criminal Application No.11100 of 2018 for hearing.

3. Special Criminal Application No.11100 of 2018 is still running matter along with other cognate matters hence, the said Special Criminal Application No.11100 of 2018 is ordered to be restored on file and is taken up for final hearing along with this group of applications.

4. Applicants of all the Special Criminal Applications have prayed for quashing of FIR being I – C.R. No.50 of 2018 registered with Dholera Police Station, Ahmedabad (Rural) and to stay the proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

5. The FIR is lodged for the offences punishable under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code as well as section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It was the case of the complainant – Piyushbhai Bhogilal Shah that by way of registered sale deed, executed on 01.10.2014, he purchased a parcel of land old revenue survey No.4/2, (New Revenue Survey No.408) at Village : Valinda admeasuring 43,226 sq. yards. It is alleged that after the purchase of land he was given promise by the present applicants, who are named in the impugned FIR, that out of 43,226 sq. yards, 7000 sq. yards would be put up for sale for the interest of customers. The complainant stated that after the lawful possession of the land and his name being mutated in the revenue record in the year 2014, the persons named in the impugned FIR, by creating website 'www.metrocity.com DMC 2000' tried to sell 207 plots of land for Rs.2991/ sq. yard.

6. The complainant – Piyushbhai Shah Son of Bhogilal Shah has filed affidavit as respondent no.2 in all the matters stating that there was some misunderstanding on his part, which is now removed. He has no grievance against the accused persons. He realized that the FIR was filed in haste, as after registration of the FIR, he inquired and came to understand the correct facts, thus, has no objection if the impugned FIR registered against the accused persons is quashed.

7. Complainant – Piyushbhai Shah has further stated that he had addressed complaints against the accused to various departments, authorities, police station as well as before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. He came to know under the Right to Information Act that in most of the complaints thorough inquiry/investigation has been done by the concerned authorities and his complaints were later filed.

8. In context to his first grievance, he has stated in his affidavit that for unsold 7000 sq. yards of plot, he has got a good offer so does not propose to sell the plot through the accused with brokerage. And for his another grievance, he has stated that on verification of entire record of the documents shown by his vendor of the land-in-question, he is fully satisfied that there is no double selling and that he is the exclusive owner of the land-in-question and thus no