KALPESHKUMAR BECHARDAS PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed by the applicants under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing and setting aside the complaint, being C.R. No. I -109/2007 registered at Kosamba police Station, Ta: Magrol, Dist. Surat, contending, inter alia, that there is a delay in filing the complaint and the applicant No. 1 is a bona fide purchaser for value and had purchased the land from Babubhai Patel, who was the power -of -attorney holder of the father of respondent No. 2 who has filed the complaint. It has also been contended that the ingredients of the complaint for the alleged offences qua the present applicants cannot be made out and since it is a dispute with regard to the sale of the property where applicant No. 1 is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, and no such forgery having been committed, the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 -original complainant, may be quashed and set aside.

(2.) LEARNED advocate Mr. Rakesh Patel for the applicants has referred to the memo of the application and also submitted that the dispute is of civil nature and if at all the signature on the power -of -attorney of the father of the complainant, respondent No. 2, was forged by Babubhai, he can have recourse against him, but the present applicant No. 1 is a bona fide purchaser for value on the basis of such power -of -attorney executed in favour of Babubhai and the sale deed is also executed.

(3.) IT was also submitted that the said power -of -attorney and the sale deed have been executed in the year 2002 and the complaint was lodged by respondent No. 2 in the year 2007. Learned advocate Mr. Patel has also submitted that the power -of -attorney executed in favour of Babubhai Patel by the father of respondent No. 2 (complainant) was not genuine or bona fide. The applicants would not have been aware and in any case if the signature of the father, who had executed the power of attorney, was forged by said Babubhai, then in that case, the complaint could have been filed by the father of complainant respondent No. 2. The present complaint is filed by respondent No. 2 and, therefore, with the passage of time and appreciation in the value of the property, the civil dispute is sought to be converted into a criminal proceeding by way of abuse of the process of the court. In support of these submissions, learned advocate Mr. Patel has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. Ors. reported in , and emphasised the observations made in para 10 as under: