The court emphasized that inherent powers under Section 482 should not be exercised to quash FIR unless exceptional circumstances are established, reaffirming the requirement for thorough investigation and trial.

JUDGMENT :

J.C. DOSHI, J.

1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ”the Code”), the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being C.R.No.I – 26 of 2013 registered with Padra Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420, 426, 427, 447, 465, 467, 468, 384, 201 & 120-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE read with sections 7, 13(1) (A) (B) & 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act r/w Sections 37 and 61 of the Land Revenue Code and section as well as section 43 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein.

2. Brief facts taken out from the pleadings are as under:-

2.1 Questioned FIR came to be filed before Padra Police Station by the respondent No.2 inter alia alleging the offence stated to have been committed at any time before 7 years and for which complaint was filed on 2.2.2013 against one Sanju Digamber by the respondent No.2, who is Deputy Mamlatdar in Mamlatdar office and the jurisdiction of the Padra taluka area is under his duty. Deputy Collector of Padra Shri JN Vaghela and village Jaspur situated is within the limits of Padra taluka. Subsequently, during investigation, name of Ms. Anju Srivastav, who was Addl. Chitnis, Collector office, Vadodara was also found to be involved in the offence and therefore, she was also arrested. The disputed land is situated at village Jaspur, for which inquiry was made by Circle officer Shri nayak.

2.2 Land bearing Block No.1004 paiki 3 and 1004 paiki 4 belongs to one Gangaben Melabhai Manchi and others and in their joint name, the land was situated. It is stated that in the revenue record 7/12 extract also, the land was accordingly situated in their name.

2.3 That on 29.1.2013, Shri K.J. Nayak has made inspection of the above lands and made panchnama, also recorded statement of ‘Kabjedar’ and thereafter, he was asked to submit the report by higher officer.

2.4 That on 31.1.2013, Circle Officer Shri Nayak submitted the report, panchnma and other documentary evidence and reported that the above land and also on government land patala, Block No.1004 paiki 4 was physically possessed by one Samju Digamber, wherein the accused No.2 played active role to grab these parcels of land. Shri Nayak opined to initiate tenancy proceedings under the Land Revenue Code and under the provisions of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

2.5 Dy. Collector, Vadodara (Rural) pursuant to this opined on 2.2.2013 to file criminal proceedings and such report is submitted by Dy.Collector to Collector, Vadodara.

2.6 The Collector, Vadodara by letter dated 2.2.2013 found that the physical possession of the land is holding by one Sanjubhai and the panchnama was also made and as it is found that there is breach of Tenancy Act, empowered the complainant to file the FIR. It is also found that Sanjubhai has paid certain amount to the farmers and got the signature in the Kabja receipt. It was also found that the possession was forcefully taken by him and made garden as well as certain pakka construction/farm house in the premise. Further, the land was granted by the Government on new tenure basis and it was not converted into old tenure without permission. The land was otherwise also not supposed to transfer and in spite of the same, the transfer is made in the name of the petitioner.

2.7 The panchkyas of the place was made by one Vaghela Yogendrasinh on 31.1.2013 who has recorded the possession of Sanjubhai and found that the premises was used as a Farm House and certain construction is also made. Similarly, Sanjubhai is also holding possession of land bearing Block No.1004 paiki 3 and 1004 paiki 4 though Block No.1004 is government land and thus, offence was committed.

2.8 As far as land of survey No1004 paiki 3, it was in the name of Amarsang Melabhai Manchi in the revenue record and on inquiry, it was found that on oral unde