(1.) Present application is filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Cr.P.C.' referred hereinafter) praying to quash the complaint being IC.R.No.29 of 2014 registered with Umala Police Station, Bharuch for the offences punishable under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 120B, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) It is the case of the complainant that the complainant, namely, Dhavalbhai Bipinbhai Patel has filed the aforesaid FIR against two accused, namely Dattubhai @ Chatrasinh Hamirsinh Desaithe present applicant and Jayendrasinh Laxmansinh Raj. It is alleged in the aforesaid FIR that the present applicant is the owner and occupier of the various parcels of land in village Asha, Taluka Jaghdiya, District Bharuch. One of the land bearing Block No.811A and 811B of village Asha Taluka Jaghdiya, District Bharuch was owned by the applicant and his son namely Hemendrasinh Desai. The agreement to sell came to be executed with regard to the aforesaid land between Jayendrasinh Laxmansinh Raj and the applicant on 9/5/2013 as the said Jayendrasinh Laxmansinh Raj could not make the payment of the amount as agreed therefore, the agreement to sell came to be cancelled vide communication dtd. 19/12/2013. That, another agreement to sell came to be entered between the applicant and the original complainant, namely Dhavalbhai Bipinbhai Patel, which was executed on 14/5/2013. In the said agreement to sell, Jayendrasinh Raj signed as a witness. The said agreement to sell was signed by the applicant and as his son was not available therefore, his signature could not be obtained.
(3.) Pursuant to the said agreement, Jayendrasinh Raj has accepted the amount from Dahavalbhai i.e. the complainant and he issued receipt for the same. The amount which is paid to Jayendrasinh Raj was of Rs.1,30,000.00 out of Rs.79,37,075.00. It was alleged in the FIR that when the complainant approached to Chatrasinh and asked him to execute the sale deed, it was conveyed that Bank loan was applied and after sanctioning the loan from the Bank, the sale deed would be executed. Despite of various requests, the sale deed was not executed and when the insistence was made by the complainant to execute the deed, threats were administered by the accused persons named in the FIR. Thereafter, on 20/12/2012 the accused had given the notice through the advocate Chaganbhai Gobhi conveying cancelling agreement to sell on the ground that Rs.20.00 Lakh was accepted by Chatrasinh and Rs.60.00 Lakh was still lying with Jayendrasinh, which is the part of sale consideration as per the agreement to sell but, no sale deed was executed thereafter the FIR came to be filed, which is subject matter of challenge.