JUDGMENT :

1. Both these applications arise out of one and the same First Information Report and therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Challenge in both these applications filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to the First Information Report being C.R. No. I – 2 of 2012 registered with Aghoi Police Station, East Kutch, Gandhidham for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 114 of Indian Penal Code.

Criminal Misc. Application No.455 of 2012 is preferred by accused No.1 in the impugned complaint; whereas, Criminal Misc. Application No.458 of 2012 has been preferred by remaining accused Nos.2 to 4.

3. The present applications have been filed mainly on the ground that the impugned complaint is an abuse of the process of law and has been filed with a malafide intention so as to harass the applicants. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Y.N. Ravani appearing for the applicants in both the matters that respondent No.2-original complainant has not come before the Court with clean hands. The complainant herein happens to be the son-in-law of one Valimamad Mamad Jabi and claims share in the property in such capacity. He submitted that the parties are governed by the Mahomedan Law and therefore, the son-in-law would not have any right to claim share in the property belonging to his father-in-law. Even if it is considered that the impugned complaint has been filed in the capacity of being the Power of Attorney holder of the father-in-law, the fact remains that the father-in-law, who happened to be the son of Mamad Khungar Jabhai, had never claimed any share in the ancestral property and therefore, the only remedy that was available to the father-in-law of the Power of Attorney was to file a civil suit.

4. It was submitted by learned advocate Mr. Ravani that the accused No.1 (Applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 455 of 2012) is a cousin of the respondent-complainant, who had purchased the property bearing Survey No. 333, ad-measuring 4 Acres and 37 Gunthas, situated at Village : Sikharpur, Bhachau, Sub-District & District : Kutch, from three persons, namely, (a) Sabiben Mamad Jabai, who is the Widow of Mamad Khungar Jabai (b) Juma Mamad Jabai, son of Mamad Khungar Jabai and (c) Janmamad Mamad Jabai; and thus, he is a bona fide purchaser of the land (hereinafter referred to as “the subject land”). He submitted that accused No. 3 is the person in whose favour the Power of Attorney dated 26.03.2007 was executed by the erstwhile three owners of the subject land whereas, accused No.2 is a Witness to the said document. The accused No.4 is a bona fide purchaser of the subject land by virtue of the sale deed executed on 17.07.2017 and that no ingredients of the offence punishable under Sections 465, 467 or 468 of IPC are attracted in the present case. It was urged that the respondent-complainant has not made any allegation about any misrepresentation or forgery of signatures in the entire complaint. The subject land sold by the co-owners is an ancestral property, which cannot be questioned by way of registering a First Information Report and that the appropriate remedy is to file civil suit.

4.1 The applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No.455 of 2012 had purchased the subject land by way of a registered sale deed on 22.09.1997 and in the sale deed itself, the subject land has been mentioned as an ancestral property. Thereafter, the applicant had sold the subject land to Govindbhai Raghavjibhai Patel by way of registered sale deed executed on 28.06.2010. It appears that prior to the execution of the aforesaid sale deed, the co-owners – Juma Mamad Jabai and Valimamad Mamad Jabai had sold their share of the ancestral property to Govindbhai Raghavjibhai Patel by way of sale deed dated 22.07.1998. The very execution of the sale deed dated 22.07.1998 proves that the father-in-law of the respondent-complainant had acknowledged his share in the subject lan