ORAL ORDER

1. By invoking inherent powers of this Court, the applicant – original accused no. 3 Naran Patel has preferred this quashing petition, whereby, he is seeking quashment of proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 2097 of 2022 arises out of the FIR being No. 11192050220253 of 2022 registered with Sanand Police Station, Ahmedabad Rural, for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. This Court has heard learned counsel Mr. Bhaumik Dholaria, Ms. Chetna Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. The second respondent G.R. Vaghela, who had lodged the FIR, though served, did not remain present throughout the proceedings.

3. Brief facts can be summarized as under:

4. The second respondent by way of registered agreement to sale, purchased agricultural land from accused Manji Thakor, subject to condition that, he has to remove the name of his father from the revenue records. Despite of subsisting of the said agreement dated 15.04.2014, the accused Manji Thakor again sold the said land by way of registered agreement to sale dated 21.12.2017, allegedly executed in favour of present applicant Naran Patel and one Mr. Bharat Vaghela. In these background facts, the accused Manji Thakor failed to remove the name of his father from the records of rights and despite of so many reminders, he could not execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant and sold the said land to the co-accused applicant and others, whereby, the accused have committed an offence of cheating, criminal breach of trust and forgery for the purpose of cheating. Pursuant to the FIR, as referred in para-1 of the order, , the applicant and others have been chargesheeted and same has been culminated into aforesaid criminal case.

5. Mr. Bhaumik Dholaria, learned advocate has submitted that, during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the accused Manji and complainant have settled their dispute amicably and afÏdavit to this effect was filed before the High Court and on the basis of afÏdavit and considering the other factors, the accused Manji was granted bail. That, on the basis of said compromise, the registered sale deed allegedly executed by Manji with respect to the said land and therefore, the very root cause of lodging of the FIR is now not surviving and therefore, the applicant being a bonafide purchaser of the said land cannot be held criminally held liable and thus, the continuation of the criminal proceedings qua him would nothing but sheer abuse of process of law and court.

6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has submitted that, merely execution of the sale deed would not absolved the accused from the liability as alleged against the him as at the relevant time, when the agreement to sale in his favour is executed, is required to be considered.

7. As observed, the complainant – second respondent, who has lodged the FIR, though served, has not contested the quashing petition on merits and remained absent throughout the proceedings.

8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances to the present case, this Court is of considered view that, the further continuation of the criminal proceedings qua the applicant would sheer harassment and amounts to abuse of process of law and court. The reason is that, the principal accused Manji has already executed a sale deed with respect to the alleged land in favour of second respondent and therefore, the grievance voiced in the FIR has already been satisfied. The second reason is that, the applicant herein is the purchaser of the land and had paid earnest money to the co-accused Manji. There is no allegation of making forgery of documents against him. The transaction was entered between the parties on the basis of agreement to sale. The accused did not have claim his right either by way of filing Civil Suit or by any other mode.

9. For the reasons recorded, when complainant is not interested to pursue the complaint and that is why he