MAHAVIRSINH NARENDRASINH JADEJA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicants-original accused no.5 and 6, seek to invoke inherent powers of this Court, praying, inter alia, quashment of FIR being C.R. No.I-12 of 2012 registered with Morbi City Police Station, Dist:Morbi for the offences punishable under Ss. 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Facts and circumstances leading to file present application are that, the second respondent-original informant Durlabhji Rangpariya, resident of Morbi, lodged an FIR against eleven persons, alleging, inter alia that, in order to grab his agricultural land being Survey No.1033 situated at Vajepar, Morbi, the accused have had hatched the conspiracy and created a forged power of attorney and agreement to sell. The complainant had purchased the land in question by way of registered sale deed, allegedly executed by one Mr. Manish Patel, who had been given power by the original owner of the land. The power was given on 1/9/1998. The said sale deed executed on 2/9/1998 and since 1998, the complainant is in possession of the disputed land and enjoying all the right, title and interest thereof. It is alleged by the complainant that, despite having ownership of the land, some of the original owners of the land, in connivance with the present applicants created a bogus power of attorney, forging signature of one of the co-owners of the land, in favour of applicant no.1 herein namely Mahavirsinh Jadeja and Rajesh Gokul Ramani. On the basis of the power of attorney, false and bogus agreement to sell allegedly executed in favour of Jayrajsinh Jadeja - the applicant no.2 herein. The power allegedly executed on 13/10/2003, whereas the agreement to sell (without possession) was created on 6/11/2003. In such circumstances, the second respondent-original informant alleges that, the original owner of the land and the present applicants having no right, title or interest to deal with the disputed land as it was sold to him by way of registered sale deed in the year of 1998 and same was in the knowledge of the original owner and others. It is further alleged that, the accused made a false document as referred above with intend to grab his property and to claim a right over it before Civil Courts.

(3.) In the aforesaid facts, the applicants-original accused no.5 and 6 have preferred the present application, mainly on the ground that, the questioned FIR is being filed after a delay of 9 years, without there being any plausible explanation with oblique motive and a charge of forgery is not made out against the applicants as they are the purchasers of the land and had paid an amount of Rs.50,000.00 to the original land owner and there is no allegation to the effect that, the applicants are involved in making a false document and therefore, prima- facie, the contents of the FIR as they stand make out no offence against the applicants herein.