Point of Law: Cheating - Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani for the petitioner in Special Criminal Application No. 5367 of 2014, learned Advocate Mr. N.R. Gandhi for the petitioners in Special Criminal Application No. 5308 of 2014, learned Advocate Mr. P.P. Majmudar for the petitioners in Special Criminal Application No. 5282 of 2014, learned APP Ms. Moxa Thakkar for the respondent-State and learned Advocate Mr. Tejas Barot for the respondent No.2- original complainant in all three petitions.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP Ms. Moxa Thakkar waives service of rule for the respondent No.1-State and learned Advocate Mr. Tejas Barot waives service of rule for the respondent No.2- original complainant.

3. With consent of the parties the petitions are taken up for final hearing.

4. The petitioners have been arraigned as accused in the criminal complaint being M. Case No. 01 of 2014 registered with Vagadod Police Station, District Patan and since all the petitions are challenging the selfsame FIR, therefore the same have been heard together and are decided by way of this common order.

5. Facts leading to the present petitions can be summarized as hereunder :

5.1 The impugned complaint being M. Case No. 01 of 2014 came to be registered with Vagadod Police Station, District Patan on 12.11.2014 alleging the offences punishable under Sections 420, 466, 468, 471, 120 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The said criminal case came to be registered at the instance of respondent No.2 herein, who had initially preferred Court Inquiry Case No. 183 of 2014 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patan and whereas the learned 7th Additional JMFC, Patan vide order dated 05.11.2014 had directed the concerned Police Station to investigate the complaint under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

5.2 The complainant has inter alia alleged in the complaint that his ancestors were having two parcels of land bearing revenue survey Nos. 55 Paiki 2 and 55 Paiki 3 situated at village Vadu, District Patan, and whereas according to the complainant, taking disadvantage of the ignorance of the complainant and his ancestors, the revenue entry No. 87 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 10.12.1953 whereby the land bearing revenue survey No. 55 Paiki 5 came to be shown as being ownership of one Rabari Madha Visa. It is further stated that one Talja Mohan Rabari being legal heir of Rabari Madha Visa had sold the land bearing survey No. 55 Paiki 5 by way of sale deed dated 19.11.1983 in favour of the accused No.2 in the complaint. It is alleged that the said parcel of land had been sold by the legal heir of Rabari Madha Visa inspite of the seller not having any right, title or interest in the land in question and whereas it is alleged that the said sale was in connivance between the legal heirs of Rabari Madha Visa and the purchasers of the land in question. It is further alleged that one Hanifaben Rasulbhai Aghariya had expired in the year 1992 and whereas name of Ibrahimbhai Rasulbhai Aghariya who is petitioner No.1 in Special Criminal Application No. 52825 of 2014 and accused No.1 in the complaint came to be entered into the revenue record as legal heir of deceased Hanifaben Rasulbhai. It is alleged that in the year 2008, entry No.1796 had been mutated in the revenue record showing as if the deceased Hanifaben has been alive and a family settlement came to be recorded where 05 parcels of land came in favour of the accused No.4 in the complaint who is also petitioner No. 4 in Special Criminal Application No. 5282 of 2014. It is alleged that the said entry came to be finalized by the government officials without checking the record, more particularly since a family settlement deed came to be entered into record where thumb impression of Hanifaben came to be taken inspite of the fact that she was not alive on that day. Allegations have been made also against the accused Nos. 5 and 6 who are shown to be having signed the family s