SOLOMEN SMITH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two instant miscellaneous petitions have been filed by the petitioners Solomen Smith and Prakash Chand Doshi seeking quashing of the F.I.R. No. 7/2011 registered at P.S. Abu Parvat, Dist. Sirohi for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant respondent No. 2 claiming himself to bee the Secretary of the Gujarat Christian Service Society I.P. Mission Compound, Station Road, Anand filed a complaint in the Court of A.C.J.M. Mount Abu against four persons viz. Solomen Smith, Prakash Chand Doshi, Chandra Shekhar Rao and Narayan Singh for the aforesaid offences. As per the allegations levelled in the complaint, the complainant is the Secretary of Gujarat Christian Service Society. The society had been formed for the purpose of managing the properties of the Indian Presbyterian Mission Trust (I.P. Mission Trust). The complainant further claimed that he had been authorised by the Gujarat Christian Service Society I.P. Mission to deal with all the legal matters of the society as well as the trust. It is further alleged in the complaint that the headquarter of the I.P. Mission Trust is located in the I.P. Mission Compound Elis Bridge, Ahemedabad and that various properties of the trust are located at different places. The complainant further alleged that one of the properties of the I.P. Mission Trust measuring 1.5 acres known by the name Palm View is located at Kalchhapara, Mount Abu. It was further alleged that the property Palm View was under the ownership and management of the Gujarat Christian Service Society and it was occupied and being used by it. The complainant further alleged that the accused persons named in the complaint, in order to usurp the aforesaid property of the trust obtained photo stat copies of title deeds and other documents of the property. Thereafter the accused No. 1 i.e. Solomon Smith claiming himself to be authorised by the Indian Canadian Presbyterian Mission and fraudulently projecting the property to be that of the Indian Canadian Presbyterian Mission executed a sale deed of the said property in favour of the accused No. 2 i.e. Prakash Chand Joshi. The accused No. 3 Chandra Shekhar Rao and accused No. 4 Narayan Singh identified the accused No, 1 in the sale deed and became witnesses of the sale which was registered at the Sub Registrar Office, Abu Road. The complainant on coming to know of the execution of sale deed obtained a certified copy of the sale deed from the Sub Registrar Office. The complainant further claimed in the complainant that the accused No. 1 to 4 knew fully well that the property named palm View was not owned by Indian Canadian Presbyterian Mission but despite that, fraudulently claiming the property to be that of Indian Canadian Presbyterian Mission a forged sale deed was executed by the accused No. 1 Solomen in favour of the accused No, 2 Prakash Chand Doshi. The complainant further claimed that the sale consideration of the property was kept at Rs. 60 lacs and 9 lacs were claimed to have been given as an advance to the accused whereas the actual market value of the trust property runs into crores of rupees. The complainant submitted in the complaint that fraudulent and forged documents were created in order to usurp the property of the I.P. trust. The property of the I.P. Mission Trust was fraudulently projected as the property of Indian Canadian Presbyterian Mission and thereafter the I.P. Mission Trust's property was sold by the accused Solomen to the accused Solomen to the accused Prakash Chand whereas both the trusts are entirely different entities and the I.P. Mission Trust owns the Palm View property. The complainant further prayed that the accused be punished for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C.

(2.) The complaint was forwarded to the Police Station Abu Farvat for investigation where F.I.R. No. 7/2011 was registered and investigation commenced. The petitioners have now approached this Court seeking quashing of the F.I.R. and subsequent investigation conducted thereupon by way of these two criminal miscellaneous petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(3.) Shri M.D. Purohit, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Pappu Sangwa, Shri Hemant Jain and Sunil Ranwa, learned counsels for the petitioners vehemently contended before this Court that ex-facie a bare reading of the F.I.R. does not disclose any offence whatsoever against the petitioners. It is urged that the petitioner Solomen Smith (Crl. Misc. Petition No. 281/2012), the Secretary cum Moderator & Administrator of the Indian Canadian Presbyterian Society had the right to administer the property in question, and therefore, he bonafidely acting as the Secretary of the Society has rightfully sold the property to the petitioner Prakash Chand Doshi (Crl. M.P. No. 2661/2012). Learned counsels submit that the title of the property in question was originally of the Irish Presbyterian Mission Trust or the Irish Mission which along with its subordinate bodies were merged in the Canadian Mission was back in the year 1927 and thereafter the property in question is being managed and owned by the Canadian Mission. Certain documents claiming to project the property to be that of Canadian Mission (Indian Canadian Presbyterian Mission) have been filed along with the petitions. Learned counsel thus submit that exfacie the F.I.R. impugned and all the subsequent investigation conducted thereupon deserve to be quashed. Learned counsel for Solomen Smith also contended that. a civil suit is already pending in relation to the property in question, and therefore, the F.I.R. impugned is fit to be quashed.