Gujarat High Court
Govindsinh Takhatsinh Solanki vs State Of Gujarat on 30 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23161/2015 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 23161 of 2015
==========================================================
GOVINDSINH TAKHATSINH SOLANKI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARNISH V DARJI(3705) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 30/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the petitioner have prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being C.R.No.I-51 of 2015 registered with Bopal Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 114 of the IPC as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:-
2. The petitioner had purchased land bearing Block No. 271 Paiki of Village Manipur, Taluka Sanand, District Ahmedabad, by way of a registered Sale Deed No. 4358 of 2007 for a consideration of Rs. 3,50,000/-. Upon the demise of the original owner, Thakore Chottaji Sedhaji, the names of his legal heirs were mutated in the revenue records vide Entry No. 4329, certified on 07/10/2009.
Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 02:19:06 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23161/2015 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined Thereafter, the petitioner applied for mutation of his name on the basis of the registered sale deed, and Entry No. 4409 was made, which was later cancelled on the ground of non-conformity with the revenue records. The petitioner filed an RTS Appeal before the Deputy Collector, Dholka, which is pending adjudication. In the meanwhile, Respondent No. 2 issued a public notice for title clearance of the same land, to which the PETITIONER submitted a written objection through his advocate.
2.1. Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint before the Special Investigation Team (Land), Ahmedabad Rural, where the petitioner was summoned, his statement recorded, and no offence was found against him. Subsequently, an FIR being C.R. No. I-51 of 2015 was registered at Bopal Police Station against the witnesses to the sale deed; the petitioner was not named as an accused therein. However, in the charge sheet filed as Chargesheet No. 45 of 2015, the petitioner came to be shown as an absconding accused. The petitioner had earlier filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 17538 of 2015 for quashing of the FIR, which was later withdrawn. He was granted anticipatory bail in Criminal Misc. Application No. 18525 of 2015, and has since cooperated with the investigation. The petitioner contends that the impugned complaint is false, frivolous, and malicious, and has therefore preferred the present application seeking quashing of the same.
SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONER:-
3. Learned advocate Mr. Harnish Darji, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of agricultural land bearing Block No. 271 Paiki, situated at Village Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 02:19:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23161/2015 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined Manipur, Taluka Sanand, District Ahmedabad. It is submitted that the petitioner has purchased the said land by executing a registered sale deed, which has been duly recorded with the appropriate authority.
3.1. He further submitted that even if the contents of the FIR and the charge-sheet are taken at face value, they do not prima facie disclose that the petitioner has played any active role in the alleged conspiracy of document forgery, impersonation, or fabrication of signatures presented before the registering authority. Learned advocate Mr. Darji submitted that, being a bona fide purchaser, the petitioner can be fastened with criminal liability only upon a cogent prima facie showing that he acted in collusion with the principal accused, who is alleged to have impersonated the original owner and forged documents submitted for registration.
3.2. It is submitted that, as per the FIR, one Mr. Sedhaji Thakore is alleged to have impersonated the father of the complainant and appeared before the registering authority. The petitioner is not alleged to have impersonated anyone, nor is he alleged to have participated in the act of impersonation.
3.3. Learned advocate Mr. Darji also submitted that, following the purchase of the disputed land, the petitioner had published a public notice (Annexure D) inviting objections from the general public regarding the title of the agricultural land in question. Pursuant to such public notice, the complainant, instead of raising any objection to the petitioner's title through lawful means, chose to file the impugned FIR.
Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 02:19:06 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23161/2015 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined 3.4. He further submitted that, in any case, a subsequent deed of cancellation (reversed sale deed) has been executed, thus altering the status of the original transaction.
3.5. Learned advocate referred to page 50 and submitted that the transaction alleged to have been forged has subsequently been reversed, and that the title and possession of the land in question-- which had later been transferred to a third party by the complainant and other heirs of the deceased--stands duly rectified. In view of the above, he submitted that the present petition deserves to be allowed.
SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENTS:-
4. Learned APP, on the other hand, upon referring to the charge sheet papers, submitted that the petitioner was complicit with the co-accused and had aided them in impersonating the complainant's father, forging his signature, and falsely identifying him before the registering authority. It was therefore urged that this Court may not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR. Private respondents have been duly served but have not entered appearance.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS OF THE COURT:-
5. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the record, a few relevant dates require consideration. The revenue entry in favour of the petitioner, as against the family members, was mutated on 17.07.2009 and certified on 07.10.2009 under Entry No. 4329. The land was Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 02:19:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23161/2015 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined originally held jointly by the complainant's father and the elder brother of her father. The registered sale deed concerning the agricultural land was executed on 23.08.2007 vide Registered Sale Deed No. 4358--prior to the date of the revenue entry in favour of the complainant and others. However, the entry relating to the said sale deed came to be recorded only on 12.01.2010.
5.1. It is alleged in the FIR that one Sedhaji Thakore impersonated the complainant's father by affixing his photograph on the sale deed and fraudulently executing the transfer in favour of the petitioner. As per the FIR, this incident occurred in 2007, while the entry of the sale deed was recorded in 2010. Despite this, the FIR came to be lodged only in 2015. Notably, the FIR does not explain why it was not registered immediately upon discovering that impersonation and forgery had occurred, nor why the complainant remained silent for years, especially when a public notice was issued by the petitioner on 18.10.2010 (Annexure D). These material questions remain unanswered. The timing of the FIR is significant, as the person alleged to have impersonated the complainant's father--Sedhaji Thakore--had already passed away by the time of registration of the FIR. Yet, no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming as to why criminal proceedings were not initiated earlier.
5.2. Be that as it may, the documents from page 50 onwards demonstrate that the petitioner, who had purchased the subject land, has executed a cancellation deed nullifying the alleged registered sale deed. Consequently, the title and possession of the agricultural land were restored to the complainant and other legal heirs of the deceased, who have thereafter sold the property to a third party.
Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 02:19:06 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23161/2015 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined 5.3. In view of the above checkered factual history, the learned APP has failed to point out any additional material or factual aspect that would substantiate the allegations against the present petitioner. The charge sheet, which primarily begins with the supplementary statement of the complainant, is nothing more than a reiteration of the original complaint. The statements of other witnesses also fall short of demonstrating that the present petitioner had impersonated the complainant's father or had actively participated in the execution of the forged document.
5.4. In the aforesaid circumstances, subjecting the petitioner to the rigors of trial would serve no fruitful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
ORDER:-
6. The petition is ALLOWED. The FIR being C.R.No.I-51 of 2015 registered with Bopal Police Station, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed and set aside.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) MANISH MISHRA Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 02:19:06 IST 2025