RAMESHBHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the aforesaid petition, the petitioners are seeking relief to quash and set aside the complaint being Inquiry Case No. 39 of 2009 registered with Vadodara Rural Police Station, Vadodara Taluka by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent No.2 - original complainant is the daughter of deceased Shanabhai Trikambhai Parmar, who expired on 16.05.1994. The said deceased Shanabhai was having the agricultural land in the sim of village namely Hinglot being ancestral property situated in Block No.89 and Survey No. 38. In the said parcel of land, the original complainant - respondent No.2 is having share, being the daughter of the deceased Shanabhai. It is the case of the complainant that the respondent No.2 ­ original complainant got married 30 years before and she is living separately with her husband at Village Jasapura and prior to the complaint for about 5 days, when she had gone to the revenue office to pay revenue for the land, the land revenue officer, Talati -cum - Mantri informed that qua the land bearing Block No.89, the name of the petitioner No.1 has entered in the revenue record, on the basis of the Will and she was given the copy of that Will. The respondent No.2 by pleading ignorance about it, has filed the complaint in question by asserting that her signature is forged and someone has signed behind her back. The criminal case came to be filed by the respondent No.2 for the offence under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 420 IPC before the Vadodara Rural Police Station and the same was registered as inquiry Case No. 39 of 2009.

(2.) Pursuant to the said complaint having been filed, the petitioners approached this Court by way of the present petition for seeking quashment of the complaint by contending that it is purely a dispute of civil nature, which is tried to be given an instance of criminal offence and thereby respondent No.2 has abused the process of law. This Court on the stand taken by the respondent No.2 was pleased to entertain this petition in the month of March, 2009 and by recording the stand of the petitioners issue notice on 20.03.2009 making it returnable on 21.04.2009 and in the meantime, the proceedings pursuant the impugned order and F.I.R. is ordered to be remain stayed. The matter thereafter time to time adjourned and it appears that in the month of April, 2009, this Court had, on 21.04.2009 passed the following order.

(3.) It is this background of the fact that now the present petition has come up for final hearing, and the learned Advocate Mr. A.R. Majmudar, appearing on behalf of the petitioners has mainly contended that the process of filing First Information Report against the petitioners is nothing but a clear example of abuse of the process of law and it was contended that such an attempt may not be allowed, to be encouraged and thereby requested to quash the complaint. It was pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners that grievance which has been voiced out by respondent No.2 that a forged Will is got up by the petitioners but in fact the counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court that the Will came to be executed on 23.10.1992 during the life time of the deceased, father of the respondent No.2 and it appears that the Will is signed by the testator, and the witnesses as well. Pursuant to which, the counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the revenue record has also came to be mutated pursuant to the execution of the Will, wherein the names of the petitioners are already mutated and it has been stated before the Court that the said mutation has taken place after following the entire procedure as contemplated under Section 135(D) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention at page -16 that while mutating the names, the revenue authorities have recorded the statements of all the three legal heirs of the deceased Shanabhai and specific attention is drawn that respondent No.2 herself is signatory to the said reply which was given way back in February, 2009. The counsel for the petitioners has further drawn the attention of this Court that even the petitioner No.1 has filed a probate application in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Vadodara being Probate Application No. 180 of 1995, which was filed under Section 222 of the Indian Succession Act. The said probate application is filed on 10.10.1995 and process of this probate application is also served upon respondent No.2 and other legal heirs of deceased - Shanabhai, in fact to this probate application pursuant to the process having been served except seeking adjournments, no other steps are taken, neither reply is filed by the respondent No.2 nor participated in the said proceedings, though served, wherein the respondent No.2 is opponent No.2 in that probate application which is pending since 1995.