SURSINH BHIMSINH PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these revision applications under Sections 397 read with 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure are preferred by the original accused Nos. 3,4 and 5 respectively challenging the order of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate passed on the applications of discharge being Exh.12 and Exh.10 respectively in Criminal Case No.1349 of 2007, urging this Court to quash and set aside the impugned order and to discharge all the applicants from the criminal case mentioned herein before. It also sought to stay the further proceedings of Criminal Case No.1349 of 2007 pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deesa.

(2.) It would be required to briefly recapitulate the fact of said Criminal Case No.1349 of 2007 so as to grasp controversy raised before this Court.

(3.) Present applicants one Jiviben G.Patel and Purshotam G.Patel (respectively accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the original proceedings) are the resident of village: Kant of Deesa Taluka. Both accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the original land owners who sold their land, as per the case of prosecution, bearing Survey No.79/1 to one Shri Mukeshbhai Gadhvi, MLA, Danta vide registered sale deed dated 13th June, 2006 bearing Index No.2861 by registering the said deed in the Sub-Registrar Office. Said sale-deed was witnessed by 2 witnesses, namely, Shakid Shaikh and Mali Somaji. One FIR came to be lodged before the Deesa Police Station bearing C.R.No.I-121/06 for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of Indian Penal Code adding the offence under Sections 467 and 471 before the Court. Though, the present applicants-original accused have not been shown as accused in the FIR, on due investigation they were found arraigned as an accused in the charge-sheet placed before the Court. It is the case of the prosecution that original land owners, after getting the land converted into Non Agricultural land sub-plotted them and transferred by way of sale to the proposed society by registered sale deed dated 2.6.1984 as also to one Shri Vijaykumar Ramniklal. It is further alleged that thereafter for getting further economic benefits in unjust and illegal way, an attempt was made by hatching the conspiracy to sell the sub-plots, which were already once sold and thus, original land owners are alleged to have done criminal breach of trust and hatched a conspiracy in collusion with present applicants, Shambhaji Manaji Thakore and Kalyan Manaji Thakore. Both these applicants preferred an application vide Exh.12 whereas petitioner Sursinh Bhimsinh Parmar of Criminal Revision No.699 of 2007 made an application vide Exh.10 of discharge. After hearing both the sides and adverting the contentions, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by its common order dated 8th October, 2007, rejected both these applications Exh.10 and 12, thereby rejecting the request of discharge by giving detailed reasonings. Impugned order is in challenge before this Court.