CHAUDHARI (LOH) VALJIBHAI PARTHIBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Code, 1973, the applicants - original accused persons seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying for quashing of the First Information Report bearing IC. R. No.24 of 2015 registered before the Chhapi Police Station, District: Banaskantha for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 478, 504, 506(2) read with 114 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) It is the case of the first informant that he is one of the joint owners of a land bearing survey No.419/3 situated at village: Mahi, Taluka: Vadgam, District: Banaskantha. The applicants are the owners of the land bearing survey Nos.420, 418 and 419/1 situated at eastern side of the land bearing survey No.419/3 owned by the first informant and other joint owners. The dispute relates to a right of way through the land of the ownership of the first informant. The allegations are that with a view to create such right of way, the applicants herein created documents by forging the signatures of the first informant and other joint owners of the land bearing survey Nos.420, 418 and 419/1. This happened in the year 2004. On the basis of such false documents, the entries were mutated in the revenue record of right with respect to such right of way. It is alleged that notices were issued under Section 135D of the Bombay land Revenue Code. Fictitious persons appeared before the Talati-cum-Mantri causing this to be the first informant and other joint owners. This is the sum and substance of the case of the first informant.

(3.) The principal argument of Mr. Desai, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants is that the F.I.R. in question deserves to be quashed only on the ground of delay. According to Mr. Desai, the documents alleged to have been forged in the year 2004, whereas the F.I.R. came to be registered in the year 2015. He further submits that there is no explanation worth the name for the inordinate delay in registering the F.I.R. He further pointed out that much before the registration of the F.I.R., the entries mutated in the record of right were challenged before the Collector in the R.T.S. proceedings and in those proceedings also, the first informant lost. The Collector declined to interfere on the ground that the entries were being challenged after a period of ten years.