MAHESH RAJA JOSHI BRAHMIN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Application has been filed by the Applicants [Original Accused Nos. 1 to 4] under the provisions of Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to quash and set aside the FIR being I- CR No. 35 of 2012 registered with Mendarda Police Station, District Junagadh for the offences punishable under Ss. 465 , 468 , 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Hriday Buch for the Applicants. Learned Advocate Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia appearing for Respondent No.2 and learned APP Ms. Vrunda Shah appearing for the Respondent - State.

(3.) Learned Advocate Mr. Hriday Buch submitted that on 31/12/2010, the sale deed came to be executed in favour of Applicant No. 1 for the lands bearing Survey No.37, 47/1 and 49/2 purportedly by one Ahir Naranbhai Punabhai. Subsequently, it came to the notice of the present Applicant that the said Ahir Naranbhai Punabhai had expired in the year 1999 and some other person impersonating himself as Ahir Naranbhai Punabhai had executed a sale deed in question in his favour. It had also came to the notice of the Applicant that the said Ahir Naranbhai Punabhai, during his lifetime, had executed a sale deed in favour of Rana Nathu Koli and after the demise of said Rana Nathu Koli, his heirs and legal representatives were the real owners and occupants of the land in question. This fact having come to his notice, the Applicant No.1 has immediately executed a reverse sale deed in favour of the heirs and legal representatives of the said Rana Nathu Koli. He also submitted that the heirs and legal representatives of Rana Nathu Koli had lodged a private complaint in this regard against the present Applicant No.1 which was registered as Criminal Case No. 25 of 2012 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mendarda. However, subsequently, the matter, having been settled between the parties and the Applicants having executed the reverse sale deed in favour of the complainant, the said complaint came to be withdrawn by the complainant vide purshis dtd. 24/1/2012. On the basis of the said pursis the learned JMFC Mendarda disposed of the said complaint. Thus, prior to filing of the present FIR the victims of the incident had already filed a private complaint which was subsequently withdrawn in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. He submitted that the present first informant has no locus to lodge the present FIR as he is neither the owner of the disputed land nor is he the occupant. The present FIR has been lodged by the Respondent first informant with an oblique motive and the same is nothing but an abuse of process of law. When the earlier private complaint filed by the victims got disposed of in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the subsequent FIR for the very same transaction is not maintainable. There was no cheating at all with the present Respondent nor any loss is caused to him because of the said transaction. He therefore submitted to allow the present Application and quash and set aside the impugned FIR.