An FIR alleging criminal breach of trust and cheating cannot be sustained when there is no evidence of property entrustment or dishonest inducement from the transaction's inception, especially when the accused was merely a witness to a transaction, warranting the exercise of inherent powers to prevent abuse of process.

JUDGMENT

1. Learned advocate Mr. B.M. Mangukiya was not present, and as the matter has been pending since 2013, this Court deems it fit to proceed with the matter.

2. The present application is filed for quashing of the FIR being C.R. No.1-576 of 2007 registered with Satellite Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 423, and 120-B of the IPC, arraigning three persons as accused, alleging that though the land in dispute was sold to Hetalkumar on 24.11.1997, the same was again sold to the complainant in the year 2005, wherein the present applicant has signed as a witness.

3. Heard the learned advocate Mr. Ajit Nair for the respondent No.2 and the learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval for the respondent-State.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Ajit Nair appearing for the complainant has submitted that the land bearing Survey No.76/1/1 of village Bodakdev, Taluka Daskroi, District Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the “land in question”) was originally owned by the persons hereinabove named (hereinafter referred to as the “original owners”). On 24.11.1997, the land in question was purchased by Sureshkumar Chaturbhai Brahmbhatt and others through a registered sale deed (hereinafter referred to as the “purchasers”), and possession thereof was handed over at the time of execution of the said sale deed. Subsequently, the original owners attempted to dispossess the purchasers by filing Civil Suit No.13 of 1998 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedabad (Rural) on 03.01.1998. An application for interim injunction filed by the purchasers came to be allowed on 20.03.1998. Thereafter, upon a compromise arrived at between the parties, the suit came to be withdrawn on 25.01.2001. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Nair that on 17.03.2004, a joint application was preferred before the DILR for distribution of Survey No.76/1, having a total area of 9915 sq. meters, between the purchasers and Jivanji Varsangji. Pursuant thereto, the land came to be divided into Survey Nos.76/1/1 and 76/1/2, and Survey No.76/1/1 admeasuring approximately 4975.5 sq. meters fell to the share of the purchasers. Thereafter, the purchasers executed a sale deed in favour of Vimlaben Sukhdevbhai Gadhvi and Varshaben Sukhdevbhai Gadhvi, whose names came to be mutated in the revenue record. In the meanwhile, the original owners had instituted Civil Suit No.13 of 1998 seeking cancellation of the sale deed dated 25.11.1997, wherein the complainant, being the power of attorney holder of the said purchasers, was impleaded as a party. The said suit ultimately came to be dismissed for default on 02.04.2009.

4.2 It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Nair that the original owners executed three sale deeds, including one dated 22.02.2005 in favour of Devrajbhai Patel and others, including the father of the present applicant. The present applicant is stated to have signed as a witness to the said sale deed and has, therefore, been arraigned as an accused on the allegation that he had knowledge of the prior transactions in favour of Sureshkumar Brahmbhatt and others. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Nair that the revenue records, namely Village Forms Nos.7/12, 6 and 8A, clearly indicate collusion between the original owners and co-accused and establish that the impugned transactions were executed with an intent to grab the land, thereby constituting fraud. It is, therefore, submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Nair that the present applicant, along with other accused, is a conspirator and that the continuation of the proceedings cannot be said to be an abuse of the process of law, and hence, the present applic