ASHOKBHAI SHANABHAI BHOI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."), the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside FIR being C.R.No.11192020211043 of 2021 registered at Dholka Police Station, Ahmedabad (Rural), for the offence under Ss. 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Ss. 3, 4(1), 4(2), 4(3), 5(c) and 5(e) of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 as well as other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) At the instance of respondent No.2 - original complainant, FIR came to be filed alleging that, the complainant purchased immovable property i.e. shop No.1 in Padmavati Complex, situated at Block No.388/paiki at Maflipur, from one Nilaben Dhaneshkumar Shah by paying sale consideration of Rs.1,20,000.00 in the year 2011 by way of registered sale deed No.950/2011 and assessment was made on the name of the complainant and paying tax regularly. It is alleged that, the applicant was doing a business in the said shop in the name and style of 'Rajwadi Traders' and as the owner wanted to sell said shop, he offered the complainant to purchase said shop and further told that he will evict the shop within 4-5 months. It is further alleged that, the applicant had used to make contact of complainant to Nilaben and therefore, the complainant had decided to purchase said shop at Rs.1,20,000.00and thereafter, the complainant had used to register the sale deed on her name vide sale deed No.950/2011 on 23/3/2011. In the said sale deed, the applicant had made signature as witness. On the basis of sale deed, name of the complainant had been registered in the assessment sheet and complainant is paying tax since 2011. Therefore, the complainant had told the applicant to evict the shop and the applicant had filed a suit, wherein, initially, learned civil Court granted injunction on 26/9/2018. Then the said suit came to be dismissed. Thereafter, the complainant and her husband went to the shop of the applicant and asked to evict the shop and handover the possession, in the event, the applicant replied that he will not evict the shop and abused and threatened the complainant to kill him. In this regard, the complainant has submitted a complaint under the Land Grabbing Act and pursuant to the same, impugned FIR came to be filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned FIR is nothing, but an abuse of process of law; that the petitioner is not a land grabber and he is in legal occupation of the suit property since 2011, for which, the complaint has been filed in the year 2021; that the petitioner is holding valid license by pointing out that one Civil Suit No.296/2015 was filed before the learned Civil Court, in which, order came to be passed below Exh:5 protecting the possession of the petitioner and the complainant was restrained from transferring, alienating and creating their rights in any manner in the suit property directing the complainant not to disturb the possession of the petitioner. He also submitted that the complaint is filed with an ulterior motive and therefore, the petitioner has not committed any offence, much less the petitioner is not a land- grabber as he is in legal occupation since long.