SURESHBHAI @ KALI JAYANTIBHAI AHIR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned three petitions are filed by original accused persons by invoking provisions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioners original accused persons have prayed that the impugned complaint which is registered as Criminal Inquiry No.10 of 2010 may be quashed for the reasons mentioned in the petitions.

(2.) The petitioner in Criminal Misc. Application No.5472 of 2012 is the original accused No.6 and he has prayed, inter alia, that:

(3.) So far as factual background of the impugned complaint is concerned, the petitioners have, inter alia, averred that the grandfather of the complainant had purchased the land in question somewhere in August, 1970. It is further claimed that the grandfather of the complainant executed a power of attorney in September, 1986. It appears that on strength of the said power of attorney, in July 1989, accused No.1 sold the land in question to three persons by way of registered sale deed. It appears that subsequently, father and uncle of the complainant challenged the revenue entry which was mutated in favour of the three persons to whom the land in question was sold by accused No.1 in July, 1989. It appears that the revenue entry was cancelled. Subsequently, somewhere in 2002, the said order was challenged before the competent authority. According to the claim of the petitioners, the said subsequent challenge in 2002 has given rise to the impugned complaint. Accused No.1 has claimed that in March, 2005, a confirmation/ratification deed was executed stating, inter alia, that the grandfather of the complainant had received sale consideration in 1989 in his presence and the sale deed dated 3.7.1989 was executed. Accused No.1 has also claimed that subsequently in November, 2006, the father and brother of present complainant executed registered confirmation deed in light of which Civil Suit No.670 of 2005 came to be unconditionally withdrawn. It appears that after considering the allegations in the complaint, learned Magistrate considered it appropriate to pass order dated 18.4.2012 directing investigation under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) and called for report. The accused persons, i.e. all petitioners in three petitions are aggrieved by the said complaint, i.e. Inquiry Case No.10 of 2010 and the order dated 18.4.2012 directing investigation.