KAMLESHKUMAR BANSILAL THAKKAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, the applicant seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the first information report being C.R. No.I-36 of 2015 registered before the Bodeli Police Station, Chhota Udaipur for the offence punishable under Sec. 406, 420, 463, 464, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that the impugned FIR has been filed by the first informant who happens to be the son-in-law of Prahladbhai, at present residing at U.S.A., who is having some parcels of land in the sim of village Patra bearing Revenue Survey Nos.70 and 88. The said Prahladbhai has two sons namely, Nimesh Prahladbhai Bhagat and Hareskrishna Prahladbhai Bhagat. Nimesh is the elder son and Prahaldbhai and his younger son Harekrishna Bhagat are settled in the U.S.A past couple of years. Prahladbhai, during his life time, handed over in equal proportion a parcel of land in favour of his two sons, namely, Nimeshbhai and Harekrishna. The details of the land running in the name of Prahladbhai Ramanbhai Patel (Bhagat) is as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_44_LAWS(GJH)3_2024_1.html</FRM>

(3.) Mr. Pravin Gondaliya, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant vociferously submitted that the F.I.R. in question is a second F.I.R. and not maintainable in law. He pointed out that for the very same offence, the first informant herein lodged a First Information Report being I-C.R. No.61 of 2014 at the Bodeli Police Station, District: Vadodara Rural and against the very same set of accused persons. It is submitted that the role attributed to the present applicant in the impugned FIR is that he purchased the stamp in his name for execution of the alleged forged power of attorney. Learned advocate Mr. Gondaliya further submitted that it is an inter se property dispute between the family members and the present applicant is the poser of attorney holder of the original land owner. Further, the first informant has also initiated the civil proceedings for cancellation of the sale deed which is pending as on date, and by way of filing the impugned FIR, he has tried to give a criminal texture to purely a civil dispute. It is also submitted that the quashing petition filed by the accused No.4-Chetanbhai Nipunchandra Amin, who is alleged to have purchased the land in question, has already been considered by the then Coordinate Bench of this Court (Coram: J.B. Pardiwala, J.) whereby the impugned FIR has already been quashed qua the accused No.4-Chetanbhai Amin and, therefore, considering the role attributed to the applicant in the FIR which seems to be less graver than the accused No.4-Chertanbhai Amin, the present application deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned advocate Mr. Gondaliya in the last submitted that the challenge in the present application is only to the second FIR and it has nothing to do with the previous FIR being I-C.R. No.61 of 2014 registered before the Bodeli Police Station and all consequential proceedings arising out of the same.