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

2021 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 4937

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 22315 of 2017 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI ================================================================
























1Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?-
2To be referred to the Reporter or not ?YES
3Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?-
4Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?-

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

PANKAJKUMAR MADANLAL YADAV & 1 other(s)

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)

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

Appearance:

MR MAHARSHI PATEL FOR HL PATEL ADVOCATES (2034) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MR UDAYAN P VYAS (1302) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR PRANAV TRIVEDI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Date : 16/09/2021

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By way of this application filed under Section 482 of CrPC, the applicants have prayed to quash and set aside the First Information Report being C.R. No. I – 111 of 2017 registered with Godhra Town A-

Division Police Station for offences, Panchmahals under Sections 465, 467, 471, 406, 420 and 114 of IPC and all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof.

2. The facts in brief are that on 01.09.2017 a complaint came to be filed by respondent No.2 herein, who happens to be one of the Members of “Samratnagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.”, which is a Society registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (for short, “the Cooperative Societies Act”). It is the case of the applicants that they are the President and Secretary respectively of the Society. It is alleged that on 03.04.2016 the applicants had entered into a land bearing Survey Nos.44/5 + 44/6 paiki + 44/7 of Village : Vavdi Buzard, ad-measuring 4,047 square metres, which was owned by one Vrajesh Narayandas Parikh and others and had put up a fence around the land in question. Thereafter, in the General Body Meeting of the Society, the applicants obtained permission to administer the land in question, as if the Society was the owner of the land. On 29.04.2017 the applicants sold a part of the land, ad-measuring 372.32.98 square metres, by way of registered sale deed in favour of three individuals, i.e. Patel Jalpa Kalpeshkumar, Dharmendrasinh Jasvantsinh Rathod and Yadav Pushpa Pankajkumar and it is alleged that one of the purchasers, i.e. Yadav Pushpa Pankajkumar is the wife of applicant No.1 herein. It is alleged in the complaint that though the market value of the land in question is some where between Rs.4 Crores to Rs. 5 Crores, the land has been sold at a consideration of Rs.12.50 Lacs dehors the bye-laws of the Society. It is also alleged that the ownership of the land in question has not been verified.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Patel appearing for the applicants submitted that the Society is registered under the Co-operative Societies Act and that the land in question has been purchased by the Society from Navneetkumar Gelabhai Patel and Ambalal Purshottamdas Patel by way of registered sale deed dated 16.06.1993. Corresponding revenue entry has also been entered in the revenue record vide Mutation Entry No.3855 dated 09.08.1993. Mr. Patel stated that the person who has disputed the ownership of the land in question is one Vrajesh Narayandas Parikh, who has filed Regular Civil Suit No.431 of 2008 in the Court of 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Godhra seeking possession of the land in question, which is reported to be pending. He stated that it was in collusion with the defendants that a consent decree came to be passed without execution of the registered sale deed. The Society was not made a party in spite of the fact that the registered sale deed was executed way back in the year 1993. The consent decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff on 09.02.2010. Thereafter, the decree was produced before the Sub-Registrar concerned on 09.03.2010 for necessary entry in the revenue records.

3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Patel stated that when the above fact came to the knowledge of the Society, it filed Civil Misc. Application No.34 of 2017 before the Court of 3rd Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Godhra wherein, the Society alleged that consent decree in question had been obtained under collusion. He stated that the applicants had filed application before the Office of Registrar, Cooperative Societies dated 11.09.2015 seeking registration of offence under Sections 147A and 148A of the Co- operative Societies Act against the complainant for allegedly committed financial irregularities. By communication dated 05.01.2017, the Assistant District Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Housing), Godhra had called upon the complainant to offer explanation. On account of the said complaint filed by the Society and as a counter-bla

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top