PARASHAR ARVINDKUMAR HIRAKANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both these petitions, the respective petitioners seek quashing of the proceedings of the first information registered vide Kalupur Police Station I-C.R. No.189/2008, hence the same were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The respondent No.2 herein lodged a first information report being Kalupur Police Station I-C.R. No.189/2008 against the present petitioners alleging commission of the offences punishable under sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The gist of the allegations are that the accused No.1 through the accused No.2 agreed to sell the land of his ownership situated at village Kalana, Taluka Sanand, Khata No.98 and 100 in all admeasuring 24180 square metres to the first informant for a consideration of Rs.42,00,000/- and despite the fact that the entire amount had been paid through cheques and cash the accused No.1 has not executed the sale deed till date and thereby both the accused in connivance with each other have committed the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust.

(3.) Mr. Bhargav Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Special Criminal Application No.264/2009 and Mr. Rajesh Dewal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner in Special Criminal Application No.303/2009 submitted that the first information report is in the nature of a false and malicious prosecution and that even on the allegations made in the same, no offence as alleged is constituted and as such the first information report deserves to be quashed. The learned counsel invited the attention of the court to the allegations made in the first information report to submit that despite the fact that the first informant had instituted a suit for specific performance of the purported banachitthi, the said fact had been suppressed in the first information report. Referring to the plaint of Special Civil Suit No.426/2008 instituted by the first informant, it was pointed out that there are various discrepancies in the version given in the first information report and that stated in the plaint. It was submitted that prior to the lodging of the first information report in question, it was the petitioner Parasharbhai Arvindbhai Hirakani who had lodged a first information report against the first informant being Shahpur Police Station I-C.R. No.168/2008 alleging commission of the offences punishable under sections 465, 468, 471 and 114 IPC on the ground that the first informant had fabricated the above referred 'banachitthi' on the basis of which the suit had been instituted. It was contended that the present first information report is nothing but a counterblast to the first information report lodged by the petitioner herein.