ORAL ORDER

Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Yogesh Lakhani with learned Advocate Mr. Pravin Gondaliya for the applicants, learned APP Ms. Maithili Mehta for the respondent State and learned Advocate Mr. Ruturaj Nanavati for the complainant.

1.1 Issue Rule. Learned Advocate for the respondents waive service of rule. With the consent of parties the matter is taken up for final hearing.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioners challenge an FIR being CR I -55 of 2015 registered with the Vadodara Taluka Police Station, Vadodara Rural on 13.6.2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 465, 471, 120(b) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The accused in the complaint, apart from the present applicants herein, included father of the complainant as well as authorities of the revenue department and certain other persons. The main grievance raised by the complainant in the complaint impugned was with regard to ‘samanti patrak’, dated 7.4.2003 whereby, the name of the present applicant which had been mutated in the revenue record vide entry no. 1230 in the year 1971 as successor of his father, had been deleted and father of the petitioner was shown as sole owner of the property more particularly vide an entry no. 3412.

4. It appears that the father of the petitioner had purchased the property in question jointly with his brother in the year 1954. That as noted herein above vide entry in the year 1971, name of the complainant had been mutated in the revenue record as successor of his father. Later on the said entry being deleted, more particularly with the aid of a ‘Samati karar’, it is the ‘samanti karar’ which has aggrieved the complainant and whereas it appears that the complainant had originally preferred a civil suit interalia against his father being Regular Civil Suit no. 108 of 2006 more particularly questioning the transaction with regard to the ‘samanti karar’. It appears that pending the said civil suit, the present petitioner had purchased the property in question by way of a registered sale deed in the year 2008 more particularly after paying consideration to the father of the petitioner. It further appears that the petitioner had challenged the sale deed in favour of the present petitioner by way of Special Civil Suit No. 579 of 2008 and whereas vide an order dated 7.4.2010, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge had rejected the application under Exh. 5 for interim relief by the present petitioner as plaintiff therein. It further appears that the said order had been challenged before this Court by preferring Appeal from Order No.198 of 2010 and whereas it appears that vide an order dated 12.8.2011, learned Co- ordinate Bench of this Court had been pleased to reject the said Appeal from Order. It appears that since the order in the Appeal from Order was with regard to non-restoration of the Appeal from order, a Letters Patent Appeal had also been preferred which had been subsequently withdrawn vide order dated 4.7.2013. That it is after the complainant not having succeeded in his challenge against the order passed by the learned Civil Court rejecting application for interim relief that the complaint impugned appears to have been filed.

5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Lakhani with learned Advocate Mr. Gondaliya have drawn the attention of this Court to the exact averments in the complaint, more particularly with regard to the role attributed to the present petitioners. That in the complaint allegations against the applicant being that they had in the year 2003, entered into a conspiracy with the father of the complainat for preparing ‘samanti lekh’, which according to the complainant was forged. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Lakhani would submit that the said allegation, defies imagination more particularly since the petitioners have for the first time entered into the transaction with the father of the complainant in the year 2008 more particularly the transaction being in the nature of a registered sa