VINUBHAI HARIBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioners herein ­ original accused Nos.1 and 2 to quash and set aside the impugned complaint / criminal proceedings filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Surat being Inquiry Case No.12 of 2006 and also M.Case No.8 of 2006 registered with Varachha Police Station, registered pursuant to the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Surat in Inquiry Case No.12 of 2006, filed by the respondent No.2 herein for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 114 and 34 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THAT the respondent No.2 herein has filed the impugned private complaint under section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioners herein ­ original accused Nos.1 and 2 and others in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Surat for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 114 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, which has been registered as Inquiry Case No.12 of 2006. It is alleged in the impugned complaint that the lands situated at village Katargam being Revenue Survey No.344/2, Town Planning Scheme No. 4 and Final Plot No.6, in all admeasuring 5456 sq.mtrs. belonged to one Thakorbhai Bhanabhai ­ original accused No.3. It is further alleged that the original owner had given power of attorney to one Mangilal Manmal Jain. It is further alleged that the original - accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 were shown to be the original owners of the land. It is further alleged that the said property was managed and administered by the aforesaid Mangilal Jain for and on behalf of the owners as the said property was under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. It is further averred in the complaint that one Special Civil Suit No. 225 of 1984 was filed by Kanchanlal Laldas and others against the heirs and legal representatives of original owner Bhanabhai Hiralal. It is further stated that as the land became vacant, compromise was arrived at with the said Mangilal Manmal Jain and accordingly the suit was also decreed as per the terms of the compromise. It is further averred in the complaint that the consent decree passed in the Special Civil Suit No.225 of 1984 was not acted upon. It is further averred in the complaint that as the land in question was declared as surplus under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, Mr.Mangilal Jain, power of attorney holder preferred a Special Civil Application before this High Court and got the land cleared. It is further averred in the complaint that one of the co-owners namely Uttambhai Bhanabhai died on 18/4/1984 and thereafter the heirs of said Uttambhai Bhanabhai ­ original accused Nos.6 to 11 executed one power of attorney in favour of the aforesaid Mangilal Manmal Jain on 19/12/1996. It is further averred in the complaint that thereafter the said Mangilal Jain divided the aforesaid Final Plot No. into 5 sub-plots namely Final Plot No. 16/A admeasuring 1500 sq.mtrs.; Final Plot No. 16/B/1 admeasuring 909.16 sq.mtrs.; Final Plot No. 16/B/2 admeasuring 894.06 sq.mtrs.; Final Plot No. 16/B/3 admeasuring 1073.70 sq.mtrs.; and Final Plot No. 16/B/4 admeasuring 1076.92 sq.mtrs. It is further averred and alleged in the complaint that after the sub-plotting, as the complainant wanted to purchase Final Plot No. 16/A admeasuring 1500 sq.mtrs, he contacted the power of attorney ­ Mangilal Jain and said power of attorney told the complainant that he will have to talk to Kanchanlal Laldas and others and therefore, he contacted the aforesaid Uttambhai Bhanabhai and original accused No.2 ­ Thakorbhai Bhanabhai along with the power of attorney and the original land owners got contacted of the complainant with Kanchanlal and others and the complainant was told to pay Rs.1,50,000.00 to the Kanchanlal Laldas and others so that in future they may not take any objection and accordingly Rs.1,50,000.00 was paid to Kanchanlal and others and thereafter the original power of attorney executed registered sale deed dtd.24/12/1996 in favour of the complainant which also came to be registered with the office of the sub-registrar. Therefore, it is alleged that the complainant has become owner of the Final Plot No. 16/A. It is further averred in the complaint that since then the complainant is in possession of the disputed land in question, as owner of the land. It is further averred in the complaint that despite the above and though the original accused Nos.3 to 11 were not owners of the disputed land in question i.e. Final Plot No. 16/A, and though original accused Nos.12 to 17 were aware of the fact that they have relinquished their rights in the land in question, in connivance with the original accused Nos.1 and 2, original accused Nos.3 to 11 have executed sale deed in favour of original accused Nos.1 and 2 and original accused Nos.12 to 17 have signed the said sale deed as confirming parties. Therefore, it is alleged that the petitioners and other accused persons have committed offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 114 and 34 of Indian Penal Code.

(3.) PRESENT petition is opposed by Mr.N.D. Nanavaty, learned senior advocate appearing with Mr.U.M. Panchal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 - original complainant as well as Mr.L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 ­ State.