VINUBHAI HARIBHAI MALAVIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the three applications have been filed by the applicants- accused in respect of FIR being I-C.R.No.10/2009 registered with DCB police station, Surat for the offences punishable under section 406, 420, 468, 471, 120-B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicants have prayed to quash and set aside the said FIR. Hence, all the applications were heard together and this common order is being passed.

(2.) At the outset, it may be stated that the applicant no.1 Lakhiben w/o Parsottam Magan in Criminal Misc. Application No.6383 of 2009 has already expired and therefore the said application does not survive qua applicant No.1.

(3.) As per the case of the applicants, the respondent no.2-complainant Baldevbhai Ramjibhai Patel lodged a complaint before the DCB police station, Surat on 22.05.2009 against the applicants alleging inter alia, that he had purchased the plot Nos.5 and 6 out of Survey No.20 of village Padesana, from the original owners Lakhiben wife of Parsottambhai, Maniben Dalpatbhai, Ratilal Parbhubhai and Sumanben Parbhubhai, whose names were shown as the owners in the village form no.7/12 and the complainant had paid Rs.30,000/- per plot to the said owners. The said owners had issued the possession receipt on 12.02.1994 and handed over the possession of the said plots. Thereafter, a registered sale-deed was executed on 29.03.2000 in respect of the said plots. It was further alleged that the name of complainant was also entered in the city survey record and in the office of Municipal Corporation. However, in the year 2006, he came to know that the original owners Ratilal Parbhubhai and others had sold the said plots to one Bhimjibhai Narsinhbhai Malavia by executing a deed on 12.05.2006. The complainant and other plot holders therefore had met the said Bhimjibhai Malavia, his partner Vinubhai Haribhai and their legal adviser advocate Ashish Modi in the office of Vinubhai Haribhai, and at that time said Vinubhai Haribhai had informed the complainant and other plot holders that the land was purchased by them from the original owners, and that if they wanted to purchase the said plots, they would have to pay 60% amount of the present market value of the said plots. It was also alleged that thereafter the Surat Builder Association had published a public notice on 13.05.2009 in the local newspaper to the effect that if any body had any objection against the said Vinubhai Haribhai and others, they could come personally and make representation to the said Association. The complainant thereafter had filed the complaint, which was registered as stated hereinabove.