The court held that the existence of prima facie evidence justifying prosecution precludes discharge under criminal procedure, emphasizing the credibility of submitted affidavits.

JUDGMENT :

M. R. MENGDEY, J.

1. By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:

“(A) Be pleased to Quash and set aside the order dated 13.02.2026 passed by 9th Addi. Sessions Judge Ahmedabad rural in Criminal Revision Appli. No. 96 of 2025 and order dated 07.02.2025 passed by the 2nd Additional Senior civil Judge, Sanand below the Application seeking discharge @ Exh. 21 in connection with Criminal case No. 2706 of 2021in the interest of justice;

(B) Be Pleased to Discharge the accused Chintan Amrabhai Bharwad in the captioned criminal case No. 2706 of 2021 pending before 2th Additional senior civil judge sanad, Ahmedabad District from the charges levelled against him in the interst of justice.

(C) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to grant interim/ad-interim relief in terms of para. 9(A) and/or 9(B) and stay further proceeding of trial during pendency of this petition in the captioned criminal case No. 2706 of 2021 pending before 2th Additional senior civil judge sanad, Ahmedabad District from the charges levelled against him in the interst of justice.

(D) Such other and further relief/s which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper be granted in the facts and circumstances of present case and in the interest of justice.”

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of the petition are such that the FIR being CR No.11192011200868 of 2020 came to be registered with the Bopal Police Station on 09.10.2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 465 , 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and the other accused. The investigating agency, after conclusion of the investigation into the FIR, submitted charge- sheet before the learned Trial Court. Thereafter, the petitioner herein had preferred an application by exhibit-21 in Criminal Case No.2706 of 2021 under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Trial Court dismissed the said application vide order dated 07.02.2025. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant approached the learned Sessions Court by filing the Criminal Revision Application No.96/2025. The learned Sessions Court dismissed the revision application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 13.02.2026. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with both the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.

3. Heard learned advocate Shri. P. R. Abhichandani appearing for the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner herein is the bonafide purchaser of the parcels of the land in question. There is nothing on record to indicate that any forgery had been committed by the petitioner in the present offence. He further submitted that as per the FIR, the incident alleged in the FIR has taken place on 20.07.2018, whereas the FIR came to be lodged on 09.10.2020. The delay caused in lodging the FIR has not been explained by the first informant in the FIR. He further submitted that it was the co-accused, namely Dilipbhai Somabhai Nayi, who had forged the document in question and had executed a sale deed in favor of the petitioner. The said co- accused, namely Dilipbhai Somabhai Nayi had affirmed an affidavit on 29.08.2023, wherein it is stated that the Agreement to Sale dated 20.08.2018 executed in favor of the petitioner as well as the Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 27.11.2019 were prepared by him and he had also received the money of consideration from the petitioner. The petitioner herein was not present at the time of execution of any of the documents which are allegedly f