BHAVESHKUMAR TEJMALBHAI RABARI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned 6 th Addl. C.J.M., Gandhinagar below Exhibit-37 in Criminal Case No. 3759 of 2014 dtd. 31/8/2019, which has been confirmed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in Criminal Revision Application No.32 of 2021 dtd. 31/7/2021.

(2.) The facts in brief are that respondent No.2 herein, original complainant, had purchased the land bearing Survey No.394/1/k situated in Village Randheja, Taluka & District Gandhinagar by way of registered sale deed dtd. 2/4/2008. In 2013, the complainant had filed a complaint being C.R. No.I-85 of 2013 before Pethapur Police Station inter alia alleging that though the complainant was the owner of the land in question, accused No.1 to 7 had sold the land in question in favour of accused No.10, i.e. the petitioner herein by way of sale deed dtd. 22/10/2013. Accused Nos. 8 & 9 were witness to the sale deed. In the criminal case arising out of the said FIR, the petitioner had filed an application u/s.239 of Cr.P.C . seeking discharge. However, the said application was rejected vide order dtd. 31/8/2019 passed by the learned 6 th Addl. C.J.M., Gandhinagar. Against the said order, the petitioner had preferred revision before the concerned Sessions Court being Criminal Revision Application No.32 of 2021, which came to be rejected vide order dtd. 31/7/2021. Hence, this revision.

(3.) Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and perused the material on record. Having gone through the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below, it transpires that the Courts below have not believed the say of the petitioner herein since the accused Nos.1 to 7 had sold the disputed land to the petitioner herein when a registered sale deed in respect of the same disputed land, which is of the year 2008, i.e. five years prior to the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, stood in the name of the complainant herein. The complainant was the registered owner of the disputed land by virtue of the sale deed of 2008 and he had not sold the disputed land to anybody. Thus, prima facie, there was sufficient material against the petitioner herein to proceed with the trial.