NITINBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the petitions arise out of the same FIR where petitioners have prayed for quashing of the FIR against them. The matter being on common facts and with the same relief, is dealt with together.

(2.) Mr. Yogesh S. Lakhani, learned Senior Advocate alongwith Mr. Dholakia, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that Sakrabhai Sankarbhai Patel who was the original owner of agricultural lands bearing Survey No. 460, ad- measuring 4 Acre 5 Guntha as well as half share in Well and Room situated in Survey No.450/4 and Survey No.462/1 ad- measuring 1 Acre and 38 Gunthas situated at Nikol Village had passed away, leaving three sons namely, Ishwarbhai, Ramanbhai and Somabhai and four daughters namely Dahiben, Maniben, Kamlaben and Shantaben, out of whom Shantaben died on 22/5/1984 and Dahiben expired on 27/9/1991. There was a family partition and the land bearing Survey No. 462/1 as well as half of the share situated in Survey No. 450/4 had gone into the share of Somabhai; whereas the land bearing Survey No. 460 came in the hands of Ishwarbhai and Ramanbhai. Ishwarbhai died on 27/12/1968 and Somabhai passed away on 16/4/2000.

(3.) Countering the argument, learned Senior Advocate Mr. J.M.Panchal alongwith Mr. Ashish Dagli, learned advocate for the respondent No.2-complainant submitted that the allegation in the FIR is more than a prima facie case as the impugned FIR registered is in compliance of the order passed in Special Criminal Application No.4967 of 2015, and therefore, submitted that delay in filing of the FIR would be of no consequence. Mr. J.M.Panchal, learned Senior advocate for the respondent No.2 submitted that in the criminal complaint and more specifically when the FIR is with the plea of forgery is supported by evidence in the form of hand writing expert report, the delay in filing the impugned FIR will have no significance. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Panchal submitted that there would not be any bar of limitation for lodging the FIR.