Gujarat High Court
Bharatbhai Lalabha Bhandari vs State Of Gujarat on 21 October, 2020
Author: A. S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
R/CR.MA/12758/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 12758 of 2020
==========================================================
BHARATBHAI LALABHA BHANDARI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR D C SEJPAL(1322) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 21/10/2020
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") the applicant prays for quashing and setting aside the F.I.R. being C.R.No.I-171 of 2008 registered with Vapi Town Police Station, District Valsad for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471, 161, 191, 204, 192, 193 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
2. Despite service of notice of rule, the respondent no.2 has chosen not to appear before this Court.
3. The brief facts of the present case are as follows:
3.1 The accused nos.1 and 2 have illegally transferred the land of the first informant in their names. The accused nos.3 to 17 are the co-owners of the land in question and accused nos.18 to 21 are the revenue officers of the Mamlatdar Office, Pardi. The accused no.22 is the Talati-cum-
Mantri of Balitha. The land in question is an agricultural land having Khata No.234, situated at Village Balitha, Taluka Pardi, Dist.Valsad of five different survey numbers, as stated in the FIR. The first informant has stated that there had been no transaction by either him or other co-
Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 23:51:54 IST 2020R/CR.MA/12758/2020 ORDER owners for selling the lands. The said co-owners are not even the members of the family, despite that they have falsely signed on behalf of the family members of the first informant and thereby have created a forged sale deed. The sale deed is executed by the accused no.2-Bhavesh Lalji Patel, as the power of attorney holder in favour of the accused no.1- Neelam Bhavesh Patel i.e. his wife. The sale deed was duly registered. The accused no.2 alleges that the accused nos.18 to 22 are the revenue officers and they colluded with the main accused nos.1 and 2 and in that manner the transaction of the registered sale deed no.4168 was given effect in the revenue records by mutation of entries.
4 At the outset, it is submitted by the learned advocate Mr.D.C.Sejpal appearing for the applicant that the present FIR is nothing but sheer abuse of process of law qua the applicant because he only acted within the parameters of his official duty. He has submitted that the role of the applicant was only to certify the entry already mutated by the other revenue officers, pursuant to the registration of the sale deed. He has submitted that once the sale deed is registered, there is very little scope for the revenue officers not to mutate the entries in the record.
5. Learned advocate Mr.D.C.Sejpal for the applicant has submitted that all the main accused are either discharged or their applications are allowed for quashment of the FIR as well as the charge-sheet, and nothing remains in the proceedings and hence, trying of the case would be a futile exercise and it would go-on just because the applicant does not have enough means to pay to the first informant for giving consent for quashment. Thus, he has submitted that the present application may be allowed.
Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 23:51:54 IST 2020R/CR.MA/12758/2020 ORDER
6. Learned advocate Mr.D.C.Sejpal for the applicant has submitted that the civil suit, instituted by the first informant for cancellation of the sale deed being Special Civil Suit No.80 of 2007 in the court of Principal Civil Judge, Vapi, which is later on transferred and registered as Regular Civil Suit No.116 of 2014 in the Court of Junior Division, Vapi, had also been withdrawn on 19.09.2018, as mentioned in the aforesaid settlement deed. Thus, he has submitted that it is clear that nothing remains in the matter as everything is settled on all fronts. He has also submitted that after the settlement, no party is at loss of anything, except the present applicant, who only has performed his official duty and even after 12 years, he has to face these criminal proceedings. Thus, he has submitted that the present application may be allowed.
7. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State has opposed to quash and set aside the FIR looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.
8. This Court has considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
9. Since now, the dispute with reference to the impugned F.I.R. is settled and resolved by and between the main accused Nos.1 and 2 by way of a settlement deed, the trial would be a futile and any further continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. Special Civil Suit No.80 of 2007 (later numbered as Regular Civil Suit No.116 of 2014) is also withdrawn by the first informant on 19.09.2018 in view of the settlement deed and hence, nothing remains in the matter and no party is put to loss. In view of the settlement, this Court vide order dated 27.06.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.11796 of 2019 has quashed the impugned FIR qua the main accused Nos.1 and 2.
Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 23:51:54 IST 2020R/CR.MA/12758/2020 ORDER Hence, the present applicant cannot be made to further undergo the rigorous of prosecution in light of the quashing of the FIR qua the main accused Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, the impugned F.I.R. is required to be quashed and set aside. The complainant has chosen not to appear before this Court even after service of notice of rule.
10. Resultantly, this application is allowed. Impugned F.I.R. being C.R.No.I-171 of 2008 registered with Vapi Town Police Station, District Valsad and all other consequential proceedings arising out of said FIR are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicant only. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
11. Registry is directed to intimate the concerned jail authority and the concerned Court about the present order by sending a copy of this order through Fax message, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode.
12. Learned advocate for the applicants is also permitted to send a copy of this order to the concerned jail authority and the concerned Court through Fax message, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode.
Sd/- .
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
NEHA GUPTA///ABHISHEK
Page 4 of 4
Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 23:51:54 IST 2020