PATEL PRABHUDAS JOITABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dtd. 24/9/2021 passed by the learned Addl. C.J.M., Vijapur, Mahesana below application Exhibit-88 in Criminal Case No.609 of 2017 whereby, the said application was rejected as also the order dtd. 20/2/2023 passed by the learned 5th Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mahesana in Criminal Revision Application No.61 of 2021 whereby, the order passed by the trial Court came to be confirmed.

(2.) The facts in brief are that respondent No.2 herein filed a private complaint under Sec. 202 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner herein inter alia alleging that respondent No.2 had purchased the land bearing Survey No. 184/1 of Village : Rampur (Kuvayda), Taluka : Vijapur, District : Mehsana from its owner - Mudabai by way of registered sale deed on 15/6/2007. The said land was earlier owned by one Achiba, who in the year 1971, had gifted it to Mudabai. On that basis, the name of Mudabai came to be recorded in the revenue record and later, Mudabhai sold the parcel of land to the father of the petitioner - Becharbhai. It is alleged by respondent No.2 that the petitioner is having a huge parcel of land adjacent to the land in question and to acquire the land of respondent No.2, the petitioner had forged the revenue record and had entered his name in the "pani patrak" below the name of the owner. In the said proceeding, a report came to be submitted by the Investigating Officer concerned and vide order dtd. 22/7/2017 process was issued against the petitioner.

(3.) Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and perused the material on record. Before the trial Court concerned, the complainant had led pre-charge evidence by examining six witnesses, who were also cross-examined by the learned advocate for the accused. The complainant had also produced documentary evidence for the framing of charge against the accused, i.e. the petitioner herein. It appears from the deposition of the complainant at Exhibit-27 and the document at Exhibits-28 to 50 that the petitioner had added his name in the revenue record as "occupier" of the subject land for the period from 1964 to 1984. The complainant had produced the revenue record of the subject land at Exhibit-33 and it appears from the said document that during the period from 1964 to 1984, the petitioner had added his name in the 7/12 abstract below the name of the actual owner of the subject land and had, thereby, created a forged document. The said fact appears to be proved from the evidence of the witness at Exhibit-69.