VIRENDRASINH BHOJRAJSINH JHALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been filed by the applicants-original accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the following prayers :-

(2.) Heard learned Sr. Counsel, Mr.P.M. Thakkar appearing with learned counsel, Mr.A.C. Choksi for the applicants and learned APP Ms.A.C. Raval for the respondent no.1-State of Gujarat.

(3.) Learned Sr. Counsel, Mr.Thakkar has contended that the complaint is being filed after a long delay of about one year. He has therefore submitted that the complaint is filed as an afterthought as no reasons are offered for the delay. In support of his submission, he has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Kishan Singh (D) Through L.Rs. Vs. Gurpal Singh, 2010 8 SCC 775. He has submitted that FIR has been lodged only after meeting their Waterloo in the Civil Court. He submitted that it would suggest that it is filed only with an intention to cause harassment to the accused and, therefore, the present application may be allowed. He has referred to the papers at length with regard to the details. He has further stated that though the father of the applicant no.2 i.e. the applicant no.1 has nothing to do with the transaction, he has been falsely implicated in offence to pressurize the applicant no.2. He submitted that as the respondent no.2-original complainant is having high influence because his father was working in the Police department, impugned FIR has been filed. He has referred to the background of the facts and submitted that necessary ingredient for the alleged offence cannot be said to have been made out, for which, he has referred to the papers including the notice in the newspapers. He submitted that the conduct of the respondent no.2-original complainant is also required to be considered. He has referred to the papers in detail at length to support his submission that the respondent no.2 has executed two sale deeds without disclosing the fact regarding the execution of the power of attorney in favour of the applicant no.2. In fact, it was submitted that after executing the power of attorney in favour of the applicant no.2 on 17.02.2011, he has pocked huge amount of Rs.2,29,00,000/- and the respondent no.2-original complainant has executed two different sale deeds without knowledge or intimation to the applicant no.2. He therefore tried to submit that no reasonable man would accept the statement in the complaint. He submitted that Rs.11.00 lacs, which is stated to have been for the stamp duty and to take care of the property is not believable. He has referred to the papers of the income tax and submitted that the applicant no.2 has disclosed the transaction regarding the purchase of the land in his income tax return, which is produced at Annexure-C and submitted that it would establish the bonafide of the applicant no.2 as purchaser of the property for valid consideration. He has referred to the FIR with regard to the manner in which the power of attorney has been executed in the office of the Police Commissioner and submitted that it is not believable.