MANOJBHAI KANUBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Cr.P.C ."), the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the complaint being FIR No.11196036200456 of 2020 registered with Harni Police Station, District: Vadodara for the offences punishable u/s. 406, 420, 465, 468, 472, 120B, 196, 197, 188 of the Indian Penal Code and all other consequential proceedings.

(2.) Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that complaint lodged the FIR against one Narayandas Bechardas Patel (Sadhu) for the alleged offences in the impugned FIR. It is alleged in the FIR that land bearing Survey No.757/15/1 admeasuring 3/86/48 sq. mtrs., situated in the sim of village Harni, Vadodara city was recorded in the name of one Vitthalbhai Ramdashbhai patel, who expired on 22/1/1975 leaving behind no heir and the said land came to the share of heirs of his real brothers. Thereafter, the complainant came to know that the above stated land has been recorded in the name of Narayandas Bechardas Patel. It is alleged in the complaint that said Narayandas and his associates forged and fabricated documents as such election card, pedigree and panchkyas and submitted them before the Revenue authorities and got the land transferred in his name. He therefore submitted that name of the petitioner came on record for the first time when the Investigating Officer filed a charge-sheet and the Investigating Officer has made merely vague allegation that the petitioner helped Narayandas Bechardas Patel in forging the documents and therefore, there is no evidence to prove the allegation. He also submitted that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the present offence and he has nothing to do with the land in question or the parties interested therein and he has no association with the main accused Narayandas Bechardas Patel. He also submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is involved or has played any role in the commission of the alleged offence. He submitted that therefore also, this is a fit case where discretion deserves to be exercised in favour of the applicants.

(3.) Learned APP for the respondent-State has resisted this on the ground that the powers under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C., are to be exercised by the Court sparingly and in an appropriate case at an appropriate time. Presently, the investigation in this case is going on and it is at a crucial stage, and therefore, the complaint may not be quashed.