The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of alleged forgery, the court must consider the nature of the dispute, the absence of financial loss or loss of property, and the settled legal principles before quashing a criminal complaint.

ORDER :

1. The present application is filed with the following prayers:

“23(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quash and set aside the criminal complaint being C.R.No.I-167 of 2015 registered at Kuvadava Police Station, Rajkot on 22.09.2015 filed by respondent no.2 against the present applicant (at ANNEXURE-A hereto);

(B) During pendency and final disposal of the present application, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay further investigation of criminal complaint being C.R.No.I-167 of 2015 registered at Kuvadava Police Station, Rajkot on 22.09.2015 filed by respondent No.2 against the present applicant. (at ANNEXURE-A hereto);

(C) xxxxx”

2. The brief facts as averred in the application are as under:

2.1 That the impugned complaint is filed on 22.9.2015 for the alleged offences of 3.1.2013 stating that he was holding one agricultural land bearing revenue survey no.44/1 paiki 1, 1.61.88 hectare and his wife was also holding one agricultural land bearing revenue survey no.44/1 paiki 2 1.34.56 hectare; that so far as the land bearing revenue survey no.44/1 paiki 1, 1.61.88 hectare is concerned the land was already sold to person namely Chintan Prashantbhai Mehta as well as Prashantbhai Manshukhbhai Mehta by way of registered sale deed dated 12.5.2015 and it was also registered; that so far as the land bearing revenue survey no.44/1 paiki 2 1.34.56 hectare is concerned, which belonged to his wife namely Muktaben Vastabhai Pansuriya already sold to person namely Chintan Prashantbhai Mehta as well as Prashantbhai Manshukhbhai Mehta by way of registered sale deed and it was also registered. It is further alleged that when the original complainant applied before the Mamlatdar for certification of entry in revenue record, at that time, the applicant filed objection pursuant to agreement to sale and during the proceeding Mamlatdar intimated to complainant about the agreement to sale and when the complainant came to know that agreement to sale is bogus, false and fabricated as he has never signed the same. It is this complaint which is prayed to be quashed by way of this application.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Bharda for the applicant and learned APP for respondent-state. Though served, none appears for the respondent no.2-complainant. The matter is taken up for final hearing.

3.1 Learned advocate Mr.Bharda submitted that the applicant is falsely implicated in the offence which is registered under the provisions of Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC; that considering the various judgments, more particularly, the judgment in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and Others V/s State of Bihar and Others reported in reported in 2010(1) GLH 184, the contents of FIR are not satisfied. He has further submitted that the applicant has filed the complaint which is false, frivolous, bogus and also vexatious as no ingredients under Sections 465, 46, 468 and 471 of IPC are satisfied on bare perusal of the complaint.

3.2 He has, therefore, submitted that in view of the judgment in the case of State of Haryana V/s Bhajanlal & Ors. Reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 and considering the aspect that the complainant has further transferred the land in question to third party, this Court is required to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code to prevent abuse of process of law and also to prevent undue harassment to the applicant.

4. Per contra, learned APP Mr.Dave has submitted that prima facie the case is made out against the applicant. He has submitted, relying on the report received from the Police Inspector, that as per the report, during the course of investigation, such document is sent for the opinion of the handwriting expert from the FSL Gandhinagar and from the said report, it transpires that the handwriting is of the complainant herself on the said document. Moreover, from the report it transpires that at present the land in question is sold by the complainant to third party Chintan Prashantbhai Mehta as well as Prashantbhai Manshukhbhai Mehta, by way of