(1.) The short facts of the case appears to be that complaint was filed by the City Survey Superintendent for the offences under Sections 177, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner herein on the accusation that accused in the proceedings before him has stated that out of total area of 15060 square meters of land the total retainable portion is 6000 square meter divided into 04 units and the remaining area is 9060 square meter for which the scheme under section 21 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, has been floated and in the said scheme the area of road admeasuring 909 square meter was shown as a separate plot and was stated as that of ownership of Pankaj Nanalal, Indravadan Bhagvandas Parekh, Dipak Indravadan Parekh, Hema Indravadan Parekh and Palan Indravadan Parekh and there was dishonest intention of not to provide for separate road over the plot holders of the sub-divided plots of the retainable land, therefore by making wrong representation the cheating and breach of trust is committed and therefore offences as stated in the complaint. The said complaint was registered as C.R.No.I-389 of 1997 with Pradhyumannagar Police Station, Dist: Rajkot. Under these circumstances, the present petitioner has approach this Court for quashing of the complaint.
(2.) Heard Mr.K S Nanavati, learned Senior Advocate with Mr.Mehta, learned Advocate for Nanavati and Nanavati Associates for the petitioner and Mr.K P Raval, learned APP for the State and for the original complainant City Survey Superintendent.
(3.) The basis of the complaint is the evidence produced before the City Survey Superintendent by the accused. Mr.Raval, learned APP after perusal and verification of the file is not in a position to show any statement recorded of the petitioner in the proceedings before the City Survey Superintendent. However, he contended that a plan at Annexure A-I (page 16) was submitted and there was application made to the City Survey Superintendent dated 01/08/1992.