FRANY RUSTOM CONTRACTOR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr. P. Y. Divyeshwar for the applicant, whereas learned Senior Counsel Mr. Yogesh Lakhani with learned advocate Mr. Pravin Gondaliya for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and learned APP for respondent State being investigating and prosecuting agency. Perused the record and paper book.

(2.) Petitioner herein is original complainant, who has lodged an FIR before DCB Police Station, Vadodara under Section 406 , 420 , 467 , 468 , 471 , 474 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, which is registered as I - C. R. No.7 of 2011 on 15.02.2011 against present respondent Nos. 2 to 5 as well as one another person namely Akshar R. Ashar (for short 'A. R. Ashar'. However, though FIR is against 5 persons, ultimately after investigation when police has filed charge sheet against respondent Nos. 2 to 5 disclosing AR Ashar as absconding accused and, therefore, trial against AR Ashar could not be held till date. His name is shown in second column of charge sheet as an absconding accused.

(3.) The sum and substance of the complaint by the petitioner is to the effect that she is owner of property under reference, which is situated in posh area of Vadodara. So far as present litigation is concerned, details of such property is not much material except to record it once that it is plot no. 2, City survey No.15 of Revenue survey No.165 and 168, since, dispute is with regard to transferring ownership of such property by forge documents. It is alleged by the complainant that accused No.1 AR Ashar had created several forge documents and executed one sale deed in favour of his mother namely Neelaben R. Ashar and that no entries were found in record of the Executive Magistrate, Vadodara before whom such documents were executed and that stamp wander is now no more, so also purchaser - mother of accused No.1 could not be found at her address at present, and thereby, it is difficult to prove that such documents is forged by accused No.1 AR Ashar by forge signature of the complainant made by him. It is further alleged that in such sale deed names of two witnesses are disclosed - Jayaben and Rahul, who is expired, whereas Jayaben has made a statement before the police during investigation that complaint has not signed in her presence and she is not knowing the complainant. Therefore, though complainant is of 84 years old lady, fact remains that she should have been careful in placing the information before the police wherein their is difference in her statement that accused No.1 has forged documents and that somebody has also put a signature of the complainant, wherein two witnesses have endorsed the execution of such documents by her. If it is so, then as per the pleadings, probably such Jayaben would also needs to be considered as an accused for putting a signature as a witness as if complainant has not executed the sale deed though there is specific statement by her to the police that complainant has not signed documents in her presence and that she does not know the complainant. However, it seems that probably correct factual scenario is not brought on record by the complainant.