ARVINDBHAI ASHWINBHAI TRIVEDI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present application, under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant seeks quashment of the impugned FIR being CR-I No.272 of 2017 registered with the Vatva Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable under Ss. 406 , 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The brief facts of the prosecution case are that one - Chiragbhai Pradipbhai Sheth, who was a power of attorney holder of the builder - Sanjaybhai Pradipbhai Sheth has sold one flat situated at C-406, Vedika Residency, Narol to the present applicant - Arvindbhai Ashwinbhai Trivedi by way of a registered sale deed. Thereafter, the present applicant has sold the said flat to the complainant by way of a registered sale deed and the complainant has paid full sale consideration to the present applicant. When the complainant went to take possession of the said flat along with his family, at that time, the builder Arvindbhai Pradipbhai Sheth and the present applicant were present and they have refused to give possession of the flat in question to the complainant on the ground that the present applicant has not given full consideration to the builder. The complainant returned to his home after that incident. Upon inquiry, the complainant came to know that the said builder viz., Sanjaybhai Pradipbhai Sheth has initially executed one agreement to sell in favour of Sanjaybhai Dalpatbhai Shah without possession and thereafter, the said builder has sold the very flat to the present applicant by way of a registered sale deed. Thereafter, the earlier agreement to sale which was executed in favour of Sanjaybhai Shah was cancelled. Thereafter, the builder has again executed one agreement to sale of the very flat, which was sold to the present applicant by way of a registered sale deed, in favour of Sanjaybhai Shah. Therefore, the impugned complaint by the complainant - respondent No.2 herein against the builder, present applicant and said Sanjaybhai Dalpatbhai Shah.

(3.) Heard learned advocates. Though served, respondent No.2 - complainant has chosen not to appear and contest this application before this Court.