ASHWINBHAI RAMESHBHAI PANSHERIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present application has been preferred by the applicant original accused under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail in connection with the offence being C.R. No.11210015200088 of 2020 registered with DCB Police Station, Surat, District : Surat City for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Heard Mr.B.M. Mangukiya, learned advocate for the applicant, Mr.J.K. Shah, learned APP for the State and Mr.R.R. Marshall, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr.Daifrez Havewalla, learned advocate for the complainant, through video-conference.

(3.) Mr.Mangukiya, learned advocate appearing for the applicant has submitted that the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute which has been wrongly converted in the criminal complaint. It is submitted that the power of attorney which is alleged to have been forged, has been executed in the office of the Sub-registrar wherein the entire episode has been recorded in the videography. It is submitted that no officer from the office of the Sub-registrar is arraigned as accused. That signature on the power of attorney as well as all other documents are not denied by the complainant but the only allegation of the complainant in the FIR is that he was not made to understand the contents of the power of attorney or other documents. It is submitted that the offence is alleged to have been occurred between 07.07.2020 and 07.09.2020 but the FIR has been lodged on 10.10.2020 and thus, there is delay of more than one month in lodging the FIR. It is submitted that the power of attorney produced on record bears photograph and signature of the father of the complainant. Even the agreement-to-sell produced on record also bears signature of the father of the complainant and the son of the seller is the witness in the agreement-to-sell. It is submitted that other documentary evidence like Adhar Card of the father of the complainant, receipts of Rs.50 Lacs bear the signature of the father of the complainant. It is submitted that the entire transaction has taken place officially. The transaction of execution of power of attorney has been executed in the office of the sub-registrar and the same has been recorded in the videography and it was executed in favour of the accused Rajeshbhai Ravjibhai Karkar. It is submitted that stamp duty of Rs.13,14,000/- has been paid on the power of attorney and the sale deed has also taken place officially and the complainant was the witness to the agreement-tosell. As such, legal transaction of selling the land has taken place with legal consideration, which is paid to the seller and thereafter the present false FIR is filed stating fabricated facts in the FIR. It is further submitted that the alleged offence is triable by the learned Magistrate and the punishment is for three years only. It is submitted that the present is not a case of false documents as per section 463 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that mere accusation of execution of a document by wrongful inducement is not an offence. It is submitted that the ingredients of the alleged offence are not made out. It is submitted that the applicant is innocent, hails from the reputed family, has roots in the society, has movable and immovable properties and would be available for interrogation and trial and undertakes to remain present before the investigating officer as and when required and undertskes to abide by the conditions those may be imposed upon the applicant by this Court while releasing the applicant on anticipatory bail.