IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 1199 of 2015 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI Sd/-

==========================================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed Yes

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed Yes

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed Yes

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed Yes

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed Yes

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed Yes

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed Yes

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed Yes ==========================================================

KANTILAL MAGANLAL SHAH & ANR.

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR PARTHIV B SHAH(2678) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MS SM AHUJA(118) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS. MONALI BHATT, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI Date : 12/07/2024 CAV JUDGMENT

1. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Parthiv B. Shah submits that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the applicant No.1-Kantilal Maganlal Shah has passed away and, therefore, he does not press this application and seeks permission to withdraw the same qua the applicant No.1. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of as withdrawn qua the applicant No.1- Kantilal Maganlal Shah.

2. By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, the applicant seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the first information report being Criminal Inquiry Case No.05 of 2014 which is now registered as M.Case No.01 of 2014 before the Jetpur Police Station, Vadodara Rural for the offence punishable under sections 465, 467, 471, 406, 420 and 114 of the IPC.

3. The factual matrix of the case, in a nutshell, is that the dispute involved in the present case is with regard to the ancestral property of the complainant and the applicant. The complainant happens to be the sister of the applicant. It is alleged by the complainant the applicant, with a view to deprive her right as well as the rights of the legal heirs of her one of the brothers Jayantibhai, has forged the signature of the complainant as well as her brother Jayantibhai upon some significant documents including her statement said to have been made by her before the Talati dated 25.07.1975 as well as the notice under Section 135(D) of the Land Revenue Code dated 01.01.1986 and thereby has tried to deprive the rights of the complainant as well as the legal heirs of one of her brothers Jayantibhai from their ancestral property. It is also alleged that at the time of creating such documents, the complainant was even not present before the concerned authority and was performing her public duties at her office. Even Jayantibhai was not present on such dates and was also performing his duties at District: Vardhagam, Maharashtra. It is further alleged in the complainant, having come to know about such documents being submitted by the applicant before the competent revenue authorities in her name, the complainant immediately obtained copy of the said documents from the concerned revenue authorities and sent the same to the FSL for getting the opinion of the handwriting expert, which was received on 07.03.2014, and as per the said opinion, the signatures upon the documents are forged one and does not belong to the complainant as well as his brother Jayantibhai. It is also alleged in the complaint after getting deleted the name of the complainant as well as her brother Jayantibhai from the revenue record, the applicant has sold out their ancestral property to the third person by way of a registered sale deed, for which, civil proceedings for declaring such sale deed as null and void as well a