VASUDEVBHAI KEDARMAL AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants-original accused have preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 {"CrPC" for brevity} for quashing and setting aside the FIR, being C.R. No. I- 23 of 2011 registered with Changodar Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Section 379, 427 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code with all consequential proceedings.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent no.2/complainant lodged the impugned complaint on 5th February, 2011 wherein it is alleged that the complainant kept two Bighas of land in the year 1985 by executing an agreement to sell from the land owner ie., Popatbhai Kanjibhai Mistri by giving consideration amount of Rs. 4,000/-. It is further alleged that immediately, by executing a supplementary agreement, the complainant got possession of the land and paid Rs. 36,000/- and as per the condition enshrined in the agreement to sell, the original land owner was required to get the land converted into Non Agricultural and original owner would execute the document. The said agreement was agreed to be in force for a period of 12 months. It was decided that until the land is converted into Non agricultural, the said agreement would continue, as the complainant was not a farmer, and therefore, it was not possible for him to execute the document in his name and thereby, the agreement to sell came to be registered, but the supplementary agreement was not registered. Thereafter, in the year 1986, one factory came to be started on the said land and for that purpose, one water tank was also erected/constructed as well as one kacha platform and one shed was also erected and on the road side, one cement godown was also constructed wherein the complainant was keeping cement and raw materials. At a distance of about 25 feet from godown, the complainant also erected six rooms in a row and the doors and windows were also installed therein and other construction was completed on the said land as well as one hydraulic machine was also installed on the site.

(3.) Heard learned advocate Mr. K.J. Panchal appearing on behalf of the applicants, learned advocate Mr. B.C.Dave appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2, and learned APP Mr. K.P. Raval appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1-State.