SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 829

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 18606 of 2019 ==========================================================

MAHESH KANAHYALAL BHATIA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

JAYDEEP H SINDHI(9585) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4 MR DINESH B PATEL(3495) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR HB CHAMPAVAT(6149) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS MONALI BHATT, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Date : 12/07/2021

ORAL ORDER

1. The application has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the FIR bearing C.R. No. I – 40 of 2017 registered Ranip Police Station, Ahmedabad City, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The allegation is that an FIR has been registered on 17.06.2017 by Ashok Tulsidas Bhatia who is residing at Vaishali Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan, and who is dealing the business of online trading in the share market. It has been alleged in the FIR that from the year 1988 to 2010 he was residing with his family at Dubai, and prior to 1988, he was staying in a joint family with his mother, father, elder brother, 7 sisters and 5 brothers, in all the names of 13 members were recorded in the ration card. According to him, his mother has died on 09.10.2000 and thereafter the names of 13 members were got deleted from the ration card; while the names of remaining members were continued and thereafter his elder brother Parshottambhai has also died on 11.09.2005.

2.1 According to complainant, in the year 2010, he returned back to India permanently from Dubai and he stayed at B-303 Samarpan Society, Naranpura, Ahmedabad. According to him, in July, 2013, his sister- in-law - Jayaben Parshottambhai Bhatia had sold away the property of his mother which is situated at Sorabji Compound, Vadaj, Ahmedabad City, which was in the name of his mother, and when he had gone to the said house, he found the documents where he saw, the property in question was mutated in the name of his elder brother Parshottambhai, and after the death of his elder brother Parshottambhai, the said property was entered in the name of his sister-in-law Jayaben, which, as per his contention, she had falsely mutated and therefore he had lodged a complaint of cheating at Vadaj Police Station.

2.2 It has been alleged in the FIR that he found the names of Mahesh Kanaiyalal, Rita, Deepak and Lavina, who, according to him, are the relatives of his sister-in-law Jayaben in the ration card. It has been alleged by the complainant that those peoples are not related to him and they are not having blood relations with the complainant in spite of that their names came to be added in the ration card on 06.12.2005 and thereafter on 18.11.2000 the names of applicant No.2 - Rita Mahesh Bhatia, applicant No.3 – Deepak Mahesh Bhatia and applicant No.3 – Lavina Mahesh Bhatia were deleted; while the name of Mahesh Kanaiyalal was continued in the ration card. It has been alleged in the FIR that the said fact was not made known to him by his sister-in-law nor from any member from her family. On all these facts an FIR has been lodged by the complainant, which, according to the complainant, it is a case of cheating and criminal breach of trust by the accused.

3. Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has objected to the petition with a contention that there would not be any ground for quashing of the FIR. Learned APP for the respondent-State further submitted that the chargesheet has also been filed against the accused No.2 and 3. Learned APP submitted that any First Information Report should be quashed in accordance with the guidelines of the Apex Court and the parameters laid down therein.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Champavat for respondent No.2 in support of the FIR submitted that trial court would decide the facts noted in FIR, to come to the conclusion of cheating and criminal breach of trust.

5. The facts of the matter shows that the complainant was staying at Dubai from 1988-2010; prior to 1988 there was a joint family consisting of father, mother, brothers and other sisters holding the ration card of 13 members. It is required to be noted that after the death of complainant’s mother, the names of 13 members were deleted from the ration card and thereafter his elder brother Parshottambhai also died in the year 2005, the widow of Parshottambhai has continued in the ra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top