JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP N. BHATT, J.

1. All these applications are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`the Code’ for short) praying to quash the FIR being No. 11210025202440 of 2020 registered with Limbayat Police Station, Surat City for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and all the further proceedings pursuant to the same.

2. As the common question of facts and law are involved in all these petitions and the same FIR is challenged in all these applications by the accused, at the request of learned advocates for the parties, they are heard together and disposed of by this common oral judgment.

3. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 10810 of 2020 are considered, which are as under:

3.1. It is averred in the application that the entire dispute, as per the version of the complainant, pertains to Shop No. 3, situated at A.M.T. Textile Market which has been developed on Block No. 101, Final Plot No. 54 in T.P. Scheme No. 33 in Village Dumbhal; that the land was originally owned by the accused nos.1 and 2 and others; that subsequently the accused nos.1 and 2 sold the subject land to a partnership firm viz. M.S. Corporation and payment of Rs.40 lacs is paid in cash to accused no. 8 and 10 in the impugned FIR; that the applicant is neither a party to the transaction nor a signatory to the registered sale deed; that the respondent no. 2 herein had preferred a complaint to the Limbayat police station on 12.1.2017 making the same allegations as in the impugned FIR; that the said complaint was inquired and was disposed of by observing that there was no iota of evidence showing that the respondent no. 2 had made any payment of Rs.40,00,000/- that similarly the respondent no. 1 made another attempt in the year 2019 on the basis of verbatim same allegations; the said complaint was also inquired and disposed of in similar lines; that on the basis of the same allegations, the respondent no. 2 has filed the present FIR and the same is also entertained by the same police station; which is sought to be quashed by way of filing these applications.

4. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

4.1 Learned senior advocate Mr. Lakhani for the applicants submitted that the impugned FIR is registered in 2020 for an alleged transaction of the year 2020 i.e. after an inordinate and unexplained delay of 8 years; that the impugned FIR is the third attempt after making two unsuccessful attempts of registering the FIR in the year 2017 and 2019; in the previous two complaints, closure report was filed by the Limbayat Police Station stating that there is no evidence to corroborate the allegations of the complainant as well as dispute is of civil in nature; the impugned FIR does not disclose any new fact as well as does not disclose any new evidence other than which was already inquired into in 2017 and 2019 by the very same police station; that the allegation of the original complainant is that he had paid Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees forth lakhs), however, he had produced only one diary which shows only Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only); that the original complainant has not filed any civil suit in spite of the allegation of the so-called transaction in the year 2012. He, therefore, prayed to quash the impugned FIR.

4.2 In support of his contentions, he has relied on the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Hasmukhbhai @ Harishbhai S/o Ravjibhai Bhanderi vs. State of Gujarat, decided on 30.6.2023 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 13117 of 2021.

4.3 He has also relied on the judgment of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 and submitted that this is a case of abuse of process of law and therefore the impugned FIR requires to be quashed by allowing these applications.

5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Barot for respondent no. 2 has strongly opposed this application and submitted that on bare reading of the complaint, prima fac