BIPINBHAI DAHYABHAI SONI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant (accused No.2) - Bipinbhai Dahyabhai Soni has preferred the present application under Sec. 482 of Crimial P.C., praying to quash and set aside the FIR being CRI No.163 of 2014 registered with the Sola High Court Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of IPC, and also the subsequent proceedings pursuant thereto.

(2.) As per the case of the applicant, the complainant i.e. the respondent No.2 herein - Tikendra D. Patel had lodged the complaint alleging inter alia that his aunt i.e. Giribalaben D. Patel had entered into an agreement with Purshottambhai Patel to purchase his land bearing Survey No.491/1 admeasuring 2000 sq. yards situated at Taltej, Ahmedabad for a consideration of Rs.1,00,00,000.00 (Rs. One crore only), out of which she had paid Rs.71,25,000.00 to the said Purshottambhai, and had also paid Rs.46,00,000.00 (One lac US$) to his son at America for an additional land of 1000 sq. yards. It was further alleged that the said Purshottambhai, after receiving the said amount from the aunt of the complainant, sold out the said land to one Bipinbhai Soni (the applicant herein). When she came to know about the said sale, she had met the applicant Bipinbhai Dahyabhai Soni, who had taken her to the said Purshottambhai Prabhudas Patel (accused No.1) and at that time, Purshottambhai had told Giribalaben that he would give only 900 sq. yards of land and Bipinbhai told her that he would give 1253.86 sq. yards out of the said Survey No.491/1. However, his aunt Giribalaben insisted for 3000 sq. yard of land, to which Bipinbhai did not agree. It was further alleged that thereafter since the Purshottambhai Prabhudas Patel did not agree for executing the sale deed in respect of the land admeasuring 3000 sq. yards, she had shown willingness to purchase 1253.86 sq. yards from Bipinbhai and had given a cheque of Rs.16,08,500.00 to Bipinbhai Soni towards franking charges for executing the sale deed. The said Purshottambhai Prabhudas Patel thereafter had prepared a draft sale deed and had told her that he would deposit Rs.30,00,000.00 through RTGS in her account as she had paid Rs.71,25,000.00.

(3.) The application has been resisted by the respondent No.2 - complainant by filing the affidavit-in-reply contending inter alia that the offences stated in the complaint are ex facie evident and apparent, for which investigation is necessitated. The respondent No.2, therefore, has prayed to dismiss the application.