Gujarat High Court
Indiraben Rameshbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat & on 17 November, 2014
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
R/CR.MA/7776/2009 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 7776 of 2009
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 9270 of 2009
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 4548 of 2009
================================================================
INDIRABEN RAMESHBHAI PATEL....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
M/S THAKKAR ASSOC., ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS AB CHATURVEDI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS M O NARSINGHANI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 17/11/2014
ORAL ORDER
Since all these applications arise from a common first information report lodged by the respondent No.2, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.
The applicants before me are the original accused. They pray for quashing of M. Case No. 15 of 2007, registered with the Anand Town Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 471, 120-B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to filing of these applications are as under:-
The respondent No.1 wanted to buy a property situated at Anand, bearing Page 1 of 3 R/CR.MA/7776/2009 ORDER revenue survey No. 1456/04 and city survey No. 2544, in final plot No. 580 of the ownership of Sandhyaben Hiteshbhai Patel. It appears that the property in question was purchased by Sandhyaben Patel from Indiraben Rameshbhai Patel (the co-accused). The property was originally sold by Indiraben in favour of Sandhyaben and Pritiben Patel. When the first informant bought the property by way of a registered sale-deed duly executed by Sandhyaben Patel and Pritiben Patel, it was not disclosed before him that the property had been mortgaged with the State Bank of India, and there was a charge over the same. The sum and substance of the allegation is that the sellers thereby committed the offence of cheating because they ought to have disclosed before the first informant that the property is under mortgage. This was the cause of action for the first informant to file the complaint before the Police.
It appears that during the pendency of these applications, some developments have taken place. The dues of the Bank have been cleared jointly by the first informant, Sandhyaben Patel and Indiraben Patel i.e. the accused-applicants before me. The property has been released from the mortgage and the first informant is now the lawful owner of the property. His name has also been mutated in the record of rights as the owner of the property.
It also appears that a memorandum of understanding has been executed between the first informant, Indiraben Patel and Sandhyaben Patel, dated 12th October, 2012. The same is produced before me and is ordered to be kept on the record of this case. My attention has been drawn to the fact that according to the memorandum of understanding, Sandhyaben is obliged to withdraw the Civil Suit No. 134 of 2007, pending before the Civil Court at Anand.
Ms. Abhinetha Chaturbhai, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the first informant has brought to my notice that till this date the said Civil Suit No. 134/07 has not been withdrawn.
These matters were heard at length on last Friday, and were adjourned for the Page 2 of 3 R/CR.MA/7776/2009 ORDER limited purpose to ascertain the reason why the Suit had not been withdrawn. Today when these matters are taken up, Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-applicants, submits that the Civil Suit No. 134 of 2007, pending before the Civil Court at Anand shall be withdrawn in terms of the memorandum of understanding arrived at between the parties.
In view of the above, in my opinion, nothing remains for the Police to investigate, as the dispute has been amicably resolved.
In the result, these applications are allowed. M. Case No. 15 of 2007, registered with the Anand Town Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 471, 120-B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby ordered to be quashed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service permitted.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) Mohandas Page 3 of 3