Point of Law: FIR is an abuse of process of law and/or the same has been lodged only to harass the accused, the same can be quashed in exercise of powers vested under Article 226 of the Constitution or in exercise of powers under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure.

ORDER :

1. By preferring this petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs :-

“A. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to admit this Misc. Criminal Application.

B. This Hon’ble Court may be allow this Misc. Criminal Application by quashing the impugned FIR being C.R.No.I-38/2018 registered with Gotri Police Station, Vadodara for offence punishable u/s. 406, 420, 120B and 114 of IPC qua the petitioners in the interest of justice.

C. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this Misc. Criminal Application, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay further proceedings of impugned FIR being C.R.No. I-38/2018 registered with Gotri Police Station, Vadodara for offence punishable under Section 406, 420, 120B and 114 of IPC qua the petitioners in the interest of justice.

D. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass any other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper.”

2. The short facts leading to the present case is as under:-

2.1 The respondent No.2 has filed impugned complaint before Gotri Police Station, Vadodara against the present applicants and one Mr. Rajiv Kanchanlal Sheth alleging that respondent No.2-complainant came into contact with accused No.1 Shri Rajiv Sheth who showed bungalow No.1 at Shil Duplex, situated near Tribhuvan Park Lane, Opp. Radhika Society, Vasna-Gotri Road, Vadodara informing the complainant that by registered document executed in the year 2006, he has sold the said premises to present applicants and they do not want to keep the said premises and want to sell the same. It is further alleged in the complaint that respondent No.2 has paid Rs.14.50 Lakhs to original accused No.1-Rajiv Sheth and he had issued possession letter in her favour in the year 2008 and handed over the possession of the said premises. It is further alleged in the complaint that original accused No.1-Rajiv Sheth had not executed any document in her favour despite repeated requests. As per allegations made in the complaint, the applicants had obtained loan from the State Bank of India by mortgaging the said premise and said bank started recovery proceedings, and therefore, the complainant had paid Rs.5.50 lakhs by way of installments in the loan account. It is further alleged in the complaint that accused No.1-Rajiv Sheth was not executing the sale deed and therefore, Respondent No.2 filed Special Civil Suit No.30 of 2017 before the Court of learned Principal Civil Judge, Vadodara under the provisions of Specific Relief Act. During the pendency of this suit, ICICI Bank had issued a notice of recovery in the name of applicant No.1 for due amount and thereafter, the applicants have paid loan of State Bank of India and they have obtained loan from ICICI bank. Therefore, complainant was compelled to pay Rs.20.00 Lakhs and no document has been executed by the original accused No.1 as well as by the present applicants. That, complaint was filed before Gotri Police station by the complainant on 7th April, 2017, no offence was registered by the concerned Police Officer, and therefore, the complainant had approached this Court by preferring Special Criminal Application No.650 of 2018 wherein, this Court had directed the Police to register the complaint in case if any cognizable offence is made out against the persons named in the complaint. Hence, this complaint.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hemang Parikh for the applicants; Learned advocate Mr. Dharmendra Parikh for the respondent no.2 and Learned APP Mr. H.K. Patel for the respondent No.1-State.

4. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the applicants were the owners of the said property in the year 2007. As per contentions of the complaint, the said premises was sold in favour of the applicants in the year 2006. It is further submitted that in the entire complaint, there is not a single iota of evidence produced by the respondent No.2 to show that applicants have entered into any agreement for sale of th