Gujarat High Court
Bhadreshbhai Natvarbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 14 October, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14241/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 14241 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
==========================================================
Yes
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
BHADRESHBHAI NATVARBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ANKIT SHAH(6371) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RONAK RAVAL, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 14/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard, learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, appearing for the petitioner, learned APP, Mr. Raval, for Respondent No.1- State and though, Respondent No.2-original complainant has duly been served by giving her ample opportunities by various orders, which shall be referred to hereinafter, despite the service of Rule, she has chosen not to put-in her appearance before this Court.
1.1 In the above background, this matter was taken-up for Page 1 of 30 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:32:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14241/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined hearing and final disposal, with the consent and assistance of the learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, and learned APP, Mr. Raval, today.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner-original accused No.2 has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned FIR, bearing No. 11192011230258 of 2023, registered with Bopal Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as Criminal Case No. CC/195/2025, pending before the learned 3 rd Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Sanand, and all other consequential proceedings arising, there from.
3. The brief facts of the impugned FIR filed by the complainant-Respondent No.2, namely Hemaben Ramshibhai Zinabhai Bhadarka, are that she along with her son, namely Jay Ramshibhai Bhadarka, purchased the land situated on the outskirts of Village: Shela, bearing Block / Survey No. 515/B, admeasuring 0-42-49 Hectare-Aar- Sq.Mts. Vide registered document No. 6873/2012, Dated:
27.11.2012, on payment of consideration of Rs.40,50,000/-.
The aforesaid document was registered in the revenue record vide No. 4385 and after the same was certified, the names of the complainant-Respondent No.2 and her son came to be mutated in the revenue record.
Page 2 of 30 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:32:46 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14241/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined 3.1 According to the complainant-Respondent No.2, in the year 2014, she was served with a notice issued by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mirzapur, in connection with Special Civil Suit No. 374 of 2014, which was instituted by the present petitioner. The aforesaid Suit was later on transferred to competent Court at Sanand and renumbered as Special Civil Suit No. 486 of 2017, which was pending at the time of filing of the impugned FIR. Thereafter, the complainant-Respondent No.2 obtained the documents produced on the record of the aforesaid Civil Suit through her advocate and she came to know that out of those documents, one document was an agreement for sale in respect of the land situated on the outskirts of Village- Shela, bearing Survey No. 87/7, Block No. 515, admeasuring 0-84-98 Hectare-Aar-Sq.Mts., which was allegedly executed by one Ms. Shantaben Amrutbhai Patel, i.e. original accused No.1, for and on behalf of Chitrakut Pharma Private Limited in favour of the present petitioner for total consideration of Rs.71,51,000/-, as mentioned at Sr. No. 10243 of the Register of original accused No.4- Notary, namely Ms. J.R. Acharya, and out of that accused No.1-Shantaben had already, allegedly accepted Rs.1,51,000/- in advance towards consideration. Further, according to the complainant-Respondent No.2, she also found that at Page No.9 of the aforesaid document, original accused No.3- advocate, namely Ms. N.M. Patel, had put her signature identifying Shantaben, whereas, one Parbatbhai Page 3 of 30 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:32:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14241/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined and one Mr. M.A. Patel have put their signatures as witnesses.
3.2 It is the grievance of the complainant-Respondent No.2 that, though, the Board of Directors of the aforesaid Chitrakut Pharma Private Limited had passed a resolution in the meeting held on 07.12.2011 and had delegated all the powers to deal with the land situated on the outskirts of Village-Shela, bearing Survey No. 87/7, Block No. 515, admeasuring 0-84-98 Hectare-Aar-Sq.Mts. in favour of one Ms. Sarojben Amrutbhai Patel and though, she had already sold the aforesaid land in favour of one Rajeshkumar Amrutbhai Patel vide registered document bearing No. 1143/2012 in lieu of consideration of Rs.73,90,000/- and which was accepted by said Ms. Sarojben Amrutbhai Patel through cheque, original accused No.1-Shantaben executed an agreement for sale in favour of the present petitioner- accused No.2 on 23.12.2011, which came to be registered in the Register of the Notary-accused No.4 vide Sr. No. 10243. It is, further, alleged by the complainant-Respondent No.2 that the stamp paper used in registering the document bearing No.10243 was purchased by accused No.3- Ms. N.M. Patel in advance, which was subsequently used to fabricate a notarized agreement for sale in favour of the present petitioner-accused No.2. Therefore, she filed the impugned FIR against four accused persons, including the present petitioner, who is shown as accused No.2.
Page 4 of 30 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:32:46 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14241/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined 3.3 After the registration of the impugned FIR, the present petitioner had preferred an application for anticipatory bail before this Court, being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 12544 of 2023, which came to be allowed vide order 28.08.2023.
3.4 After the investigation was over, police filed the charge- sheet in connection with the impugned FIR. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred the present petition, seeking the reliefs as reproduced in Paragraph-2 herein above.
4. When, this matter was listed before this Court on 18.07.2025, following order was passed;
"1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shah points out that the present complainant is the owner of the land in whose favour the sale deed was executed in 2012. However, the petitioner's case is that he had entered into an agreement to sell in respect of the land in question in the year 2011, i.e., prior to the execution of the said sale deed. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance being Special Civil Suit No. 374/2014, which was later renumbered as Special Civil Suit No. 486/2017. By order dated 29.01.2021, interim relief was granted in that suit, restraining the respondent from creating any third- party rights over the land in question. The present Page 5 of 30 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:32:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14241/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined complainant, who became the owner of the land by virtue of the 2012 sale deed, was a party to the suit from 2014 but remained inactive throughout this period. Subsequently, she lodged an FIR on 06.05.2023. Meanwhile, the suit was dismissed by order dated 07.10.2023. The petitioner has filed First Appeal No. 4833/2023 against the said dismissal, which has been admitted vide order dated 05.02.2024. According to Mr. Shah, the petitioner has not derived any benefit from the litigation or the agreement to sell, and yet, nearly nine years after the suit was initiated in 2014, the criminal machinery was moved into motion and therefore the same is amounts to misuse and abuse of process of laws. Therefore, he is required to be protected.
2. In view of above submissions, issue notice to the respondents returnable on 01.08.2025. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No.1 - State. Direct service to respondent No.2 through concerned Police Station is permitted.
In the meantime, there shall be ad-interim relief in terms of paragraph 8(c)"
4.1 Here, it may be noted that, while granting relief in favour of the present petitioner, this Court had issued notice, making the same returnable on 01.08.2025. It, however, appears that as the complainant-Respondent No.2 Page 6 of 30 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:32:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14241/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined could not be served a fresh notice was issued on 01.08.2025 and the petitioner was permitted to serve the complainant- Respondent No.2 through RPAD at his own costs, making the same returnable on 25.08.2025.
4.1.1 On 25.08.2025, this Court noted that the complainant-Respondent No.2 was duly served and therefore, the Registry was directed to correct / modify the endorsement on the Board, whereby, it was stated that 'No Report' had been filed regarding service qua the complainant-Respondent No.2 and the matter was adjourned to 01.09.2025.
4.1.2 On 01.09.2025, the matter was adjourned to 19.09.2025.
4.1.3 On 19.09.2025, learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, invited the attention of this Court to the fact that, though, the complainant-Respondent No.2 has put-in appearance in First Appeal No. 4883 of 2023, which is filed against the order of the Court below dismissing Special Civil Suit No. 486 of 2017 filed by the present petitioner, only with a view to delay the present proceedings, she has not been appearing before this Court. Therefore, this Court granted one more opportunity to the complainant-Respondent No.2 to put-in appearance in this matter either in person or through a learned Advocate and the petitioner was Page 7 of 30 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:32:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14241/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined permitted to serve the said order through 'Speed Post' at his own costs and the matter was adjourned to 24.09.2025.
4.1.4 On 24.09.2025, learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, again invited the attention of this Court to the fact that, though, the complainant-Respondent No.2 has duly been served and she is fully aware about the pendency of the present proceedings and despite that she has chosen not to appear before this Court. Then, learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, sought time to state the aforesaid facts, by way of an affidavit, and the matter was adjourned to 26.09.2025.
4.1.5 Accordingly, learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, filed an affidavit, as stated above, on 25.09.2025, which is produced at Page-192 of the compilation.
4.1.6 On 30.10.2025, taking note of the affidavit filed by learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, this Court issued Rule, making the same returnable on 06.10.2025 and though, the same was duly served, the complainant-Respondent No.2 chose not to appear before this Court. Paragraphs- 8 to 10 of the aforesaid order read thus;
"8. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah filed an affidavit, which commences at page No.
192. In paragraph No. 3 thereof, it is stated by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the original complainant has Page 8 of 30 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:32:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14241/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined not only applied for a certified copy of the order dated 18.07.2025, but, as per the status report of the petition available on the website of this Court, she has also obtained the same. From the printout of the status report, learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah pointed out that respondent No. 2 - original complainant obtained a certified copy of the order dated 18.07.2025 as well as the memo of petition along with annexures, which were applied for on 30.07.2025 and delivered to her on 21.08.2025. Thereafter, the copy of the order dated 19.09.2025 was also duly served upon respondent No. 2 - original complainant by way of Speed Post, in compliance with the order of this Court.
9. By drawing the attention of the Court to the aforesaid facts, learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah submitted that respondent No. 2 - original complainant is appearing as party-in-person in First Appeal No. 4883 of 2023, and he reiterated that her non-appearance in the present matter is only with an intention to avoid its hearing. Prima facie, having regard to the material available on record, the submission of learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah cannot be ruled out.
10. In view of the above, issue RULE returnable on 06.10.2025. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of the rule on behalf of respondent No. 1 - State. As a last chance, a copy of this order shall be served upon Page 9 of 30 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:32:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14241/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined respondent No. 2 - original complainant by way of RPAD. Only with a view to giving a last opportunity to respondent No. 2 to appear in these proceedings on the next date of hearing, it is directed that if respondent No. 2 again chooses not to appear, this Court shall proceed with the matter on merit and decide the same in accordance with law. Direct service is permitted."
4.1.7 This matter was substantially heard on 13.10.2025, and this Court passed the following order;
"Today also, the matter was called out twice and was argued by learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah, appearing for the applicant, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ronak Raval, appearing for respondent No.1 - State. The original complainant - respondent No.2, has chosen to remain absent, though the matter was called out twice. As a last chance, list the matter tomorrow, i.e., on 14.10.2025."
4.2 In the above background, this Court is constrained to take-up this matter for final hearing, with the assistance of the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned APP, today.
5. Learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, appearing for the petitioner made the following submissions;
Page 10 of 30 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:32:46 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14241/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined
(i) The impugned FIR suffers from the vice of delay, as there is a delay of about nine years in filing the impugned FIR, as the complainant- Respondent No.2, herself, has stated therein that she came to know about the pendency of the Special Civil Suit (Old) No. 374 of 2014, which was pending before the Court at Mirzapur (New No. 486/2017, pending before the Court at Sanand) in the year 2014, itself, and which would go to show that the complainant-Respondent No.2 knew that the present petitioner is holding an agreement for sale in his favour since 2014 and despite that, the impugned FIR came to be filed only in the year 2023 and during the interregnum period she did not utter a single word about the same;
(ii) The impugned FIR was filed at the crucial stage of recording of evidence in the Suit only with a view to pressurize the petitioner, whereas, the Suit came to be dismissed only on 07.10.2023 and therefore, filing of the impugned FIR, pending Civil Suit that too at the stage of evidence in the Suit amounts to nothing but the abuse and the misuse of the process of law;
(iii) The nature of dispute is purely of civil Page 11 of 30 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:32:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14241/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined nature, as the same is in respect of a land for which the petitioner is claiming to be holding an agreement for sale in his favour and on the basis of the same, he had preferred Special Civil Suit No. 374 of 2014, which was re-numbered as Special Civil Suit No. 486/2017, and had prayed to cancel the sale deed executed in favour of the subsequent purchaser-Mr. Rajeshkumar Amrutbhai Patel and the complainant-
Respondent No.2 and for specific performance of the agreement for sale in his favour. Now, the aforesaid Civil Suit is dismissed by the concerned Court, against which the petitioner has preferred First Appeal No. 4883 of 2023, which is pending. However, the fact remains that the petitioner has not derived any benefit from the aforesaid document;
(iv) The delay of nine years in registering the FIR is not sufficiently explained by the complainant- Respondent No.2 and as the complainant- Respondent No.2 is the only person, who can explain and justify the delay, as the concerned IO, while investigating the impugned FIR, has not taken the aforesaid vital aspect of delay into consideration, despite the specific knowledge of the complainant-Respondent No.2 about the Page 12 of 30 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:32:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14241/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined pendency of the Suit filed by the present petitioner since 2014 and therefore, looking to the conduct of the complainant-Respondent No.2, the impugned FIR as well as all the consequential proceedings are required to be quashed and set aside;
(v) Even if, the offence alleged against the present petitioner is believed to have taken place, whereby, on the basis of some bogus and fabricated documents, the land in question was only intended or agreed to be sold to the petitioner, but, it was never sold to the petitioner therefore at the best the petitioner can be said to be intended bona fide purchaser of the land in question, who agreed to purchase the land in question on payment of full amount of consideration and in fact, he could not have been termed as a creator of the fabricated document and therefore, the petitioner being a proposed purchaser of the land in question, the bogus documents could not have been alleged or said to have been prepared by the petitioner and therefore, when the offence is registered only under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC, the petitioner could not have been arraigned as an accused and no case can be said Page 13 of 30 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:32:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14241/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined to have been made out against the present petitioner;
(vi) It was, further, submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in the case of 'Mohammed Ibrahim & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Another', reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751, and more particularly the observations made in Paragraphs- 14 to 17 thereof, wherein, it is observed and held that the basic ingredient of the offence is that t here should be 'forgery', as defined in Section 463 and the forgery in turn, depends upon creation of a 'false document', as defined under Section 464, and in any case, the present petitioner, who himself has paid the consideration and was a proposed purchaser of the land in question and therefore, he ought not to have been termed as creator of the forged documents and hence, the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings are required to be quashed and set aside;
(vii) Reliance was also placed on another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in the case of 'Sheila Sebastian Vs. R. Jawaharaj and Another', reported in (2018) 7 SCC 581 and by relying upon the observations made in Page 14 of 30 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:32:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14241/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined Paragraphs-25 and 26 thereof, it was submitted that the present petitioner cannot be said to be a creator of the forged documents;
(viii) It was submitted that even otherwise, the alleged offence is of civil nature and therefore, the present petitioner ought not to have been arraigned as an accused and the proceedings against the present petitioner are misconceived;
(ix) It was, further, submitted that even before the Civil Court in the Suit, accused No.1- Shantaben Amrutbhai Patel, who had executed agreement for sale in favour of the present petitioner, and the predecessor-in-title of the complainant-Respondent No.2, namely Mr. Rajeshkumar Amrutbhai Patel, chose not to appear and therefore in absence of there being any evidence before the judicial forum to the effect that the aforesaid document was not executed by the person, who was the owner of the land in question, the offence could not have been said to have made out against the present petitioner;
6. Learned APP, Mr. Raval, vehemently opposed this petition, he, however, was fair enough to state that as far as Page 15 of 30 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:32:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14241/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined the aspect of delay is concerned, the same can be explained only by the original complainant-Respondent No.2.
6.1 Insofar as, the investigation in the impugned FIR, which has resulted into filing of the charge-sheet, is concerned, learned APP, Mr. Raval, submitted that during the course of investigation, the original document, i.e. the agreement for sale executed in favour of the present petitioner, could not be recovered and the same was also not produced in the Civil Suit filed by the present petitioner for specific performance, as the petitioner has lost the same. It was, therefore, submitted that pursuant to the registration of the impugned FIR, as the charge-sheet has already been filed, which would indicate that a prima facie offence is made out against the present petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is required to face the trial.
6.2 It was also submitted that even if, the petitioner has not derived any benefit on the basis of the document in question , but, as the said document is alleged to have been forged and the charge-sheet is filed, this Court may not interfere with the ongoing criminal proceedings and this petition may be dismissed.
6.3 It was also submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which Page 16 of 30 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:32:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14241/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined provides that when an offence alleged is punishable with imprisonment for more than three years, the delay of about nine years in lodging the impugned FIR shall not come in the way of the complainant-Respondent No.2.
6.3.1 In support of his submission, learned APP, Mr. Raval, placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 1834 of 2025 in the case of 'Punit Beriwala Vs. the State of NCT Delhi', Dated: 29.04.2025, and more particularly, the observations made in Paragraphs-36 to 38 thereof and reiterated that the impugned FIR may not be quashed only on the ground of delay and the criminal proceedings may be continued.
6.4 So far as the submission of learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, that the dispute is of civil nature is concerned, learned APP, Mr. Raval, submitted that even if, the nature of dispute may be civil, it is always open to the complainant to initiate criminal proceedings and therefore, once the FIR is registered and at the end of the investigation, the charge- sheet is also filed, the petitioner shall have to face the trial and the impugned FIR may not be quashed.
No other submission was made by the either side.
7. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perused the material on record and I find that it is the case Page 17 of 30 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:32:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14241/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined of the present petitioner that he is having an 'Agreement for Sale' executed in his favour by original accused No.1- Shantaben Amrutbhai Patel dated 23.12.2011. However, after the aforesaid agreement for sale was executed in favour of the present petitioner, the land in question was sold by one Sarojben Amrutbhai Patel in favour of one Rajeshkumar Amrutbhai Patel, who happens to be the predecessor-in-title of the original complainant-Respondent No.2, on 27.02.2012 and thereafter, said Rajeshkumar Amrutbhai Patel sold the land in question to the complainant-Respondent No.2 and her son on 27.11.2012. Here, it may be noted that it is only in the year 2014 that the present petitioner instituted Special Civil Suit No. 374 of 2014 before the competent Court at Mirzapur, which was subsequently transferred to the competent Court at Sanand and re-numbered as Special Civil Suit No. 486 of 2017.
7.1 Now, the competent-Respondent No.2, herself, has stated in the impugned FIR that on issuance of summons by the concerned Court in Special Civil Suit (Old) No. 374 of 2014 (New No. 486 of 2017), she came to know about the pendency of the said Suit, wherein, she, along with her son, put-in appearance. This would go to show that the complainant-Respondent No.2 had knowledge about the existence of an 'Agreement for Sale' in favour of the present petitioner since 2014. Despite that the complainant- Respondent No.2 remained silent and when the Suit was at Page 18 of 30 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:32:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14241/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined the stage of recording of evidence, filed the impugned FIR on 06.05.2023 against the present petitioner and accused No.1-Shantaben Amrutbhai Patel.
7.1.1 However, from the record it is revealed that no relief was granted in favour of the present petitioner in the pending Civil Suit till January, 2021. Thereafter, on 29.01.2021, the learned Sr. Civil Judge passed an order below Exhibit-5 in in Special Civil Suit (Old) No. 374 of 2014 (New No. 486 of 2017) and directed the parties not to create any third party rights qua the land in question. Thereafter, when the said Suit was at an advanced stage, the impugned FIR came to be filed on 06.05.2023, whereas, the Suit itself came to be dismissed by the concerned Civil Court on 07.10.2023 and against which, the present petitioner has filed First Appeal No. 4883 of 2023, which is pending and there is no relief granted in favour of the present petitioner, till date and perhaps that is the reason for which the complainant-Respondent No.2 has lost interest and despite repeated orders were passed and ample opportunities were granted, she chose not to put-in appearance before this Court.
7.1.2 Be that as it may, there is no explanation coming forward from the petitioner in the impugned FIR for registering the same, after the delay of about nine years from the date of knowledge about the existence of an Page 19 of 30 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:32:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14241/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined 'Agreement for Sale' in favour of the present petitioner, which, according to the complainant-Respondent No.2, is forged. Thus, the delay in filing the impugned FIR is one of vital grounds in this petition and any explanation for such a delay should come from the complainant-Respondent No.2, only. But, in the instant case, the complainant-Respondent No.2 has chosen not to put-in appearance before this Court and therefore, the ground of delay in lodging the FIR assumes significance in the facts and circumstances of this case. However, the fact remains that the delay of nine years in lodging the FIR is not explained by the complainant- Respondent No.2. Of course, the delay in registration of an offence is not a bar, but, at the same time, to test the registration of the FIR on the ground of abuse and misuse of process of law, the aspect of delay would also assume importance.
7.1.3 In the instant case, the Suit for specific performance was filed by the present petitioner in the year 2014 and the relief was granted in favour of the present petitioner in the said Suit in the year 2021 and when the Suit was at an advanced stage, the impugned FIR came to be lodged against the present petitioner on 06.05.2023 and ultimately the Suit came to be dismissed on 07.10.2023 and therefore, registration of the impugned FIR at belated stage , more particularly, at the crucial stage of recording of evidence in the Suit would amount to abuse and misuse of Page 20 of 30 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:32:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14241/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined the process of law. Since, the complainant-Respondent No.2 had knowledge about the pendency of the said Suit right from 2014 and after the Suit was dismissed and the present petition for quashing was preferred, despite of repeated orders passed by this Court and despite due service of rule on the complainant-Respondent No.2, she has chosen not to appear before this Court.
7.1.4 Learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, appearing for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court that after the notice was issued on 18.07.2025 and the interim relief was granted in favour of the present petitioner, the complainant-Respondent No.2 had made an application for getting the certified copy of the said order, along with the memo of this Petition, on 30.07.2025 and the same was supplied to her on 21.08.2025. Here, it would be relevant to refer to the affidavit filed by learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, for the petitioner dated 25.09.2025, which reads as under;
"Bhadreshbhai Natvarbhai Patel, Age: 49, male, residing at
21|, Golden Lotus Bungalows, Science City Road, Ahmedabad, the applicant herein, do hereby solemnly affirmed and stated:
1. That I have filed above-mentioned CR.MA No. 14241 of 2025 for quashing and setting aside the FIR bearing no.
11192011230258 of 2023 dated 06.05.2023 registered with Page 21 of 30 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:32:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14241/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined the Bopal Police Station, Ahmedabad (Rural).
2. That this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 18.07.2025 was pleased to issue notice to the respondent returnable on 01.08.2025. That while issuing the notice on 18.07.2025 this Hon'ble Court has directed to petitioner to serve the notice directly also.
3. That it is respectfully submitted that the Respondent No. 2 -- original complaint is keeping a watch on the litigation and deliberately not remining present and avoiding notices issued by this Hon'ble Court. That from the details available from the case status obtained from the website of the Gujarat High Court. it has come to knowledge of the present deponent that the Respondent No. 2 -- original complainant has applied for the certified copy of both order dated 18.07.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Court and also entire memo of application along with an annexures on the same date vide UOL No. U/3974/2025. That the said order as well as memo of application made available and delivered to the Respondent No. 2 --original complainant on 21.08.2025 itself. Copy of the proof is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R1.
4. That in spite of the fact though the Respondent No. 2 was aware about the proceedings and though they also collected the certified copy and have choose not to remain present and not filed appearance inspite of 3 other orders Page 22 of 30 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:32:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14241/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined dated 25.08.2025, 9.09.2025.
5. That vide order dated 19.09.2025 this Hon'ble Court issued further notice to be served through speed post to the Respondent No. 2 which was duly served upon the Respondent No. 2 inspite of the fact still Respondent No. 2 deliberately avoiding filing appearance in the present proceedings. A copy of receipt of Speed Post is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R2.
6. Hence, the present affidavit is filed to state that the conduct of respondent is nothing but to disobey the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court and also avoid the proceedings.
..."
7.1.5 Above affidavit would indicate that the complainant-Respondent No.2 also applied for the certified copy of the order dated 18.07.2025 as well as memo of the petition along with index on 30.07.2025, which was supplied to her on 21.08.2025, as can be seen from the status report available on the official website of this Court and the same is also annexed with this petition. The same would indicate that the complainant-Respondent No.2 was not only duly served with the memo of the petition, but, she was also aware about the order passed in favour of the present petitioner and therefore, such a conduct of the Page 23 of 30 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:32:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14241/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined complainant-Respondent No.2 is also required to be taken into consideration.
7.2 This Court has also taken into consideration the merits of the matter, where, it is submitted by learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, that the present petitioner, at the best, can be said to be a proposed purchaser of the land in question and he is the one, who parted with the part- amount towards consideration in respect of agreement for sale to purchase the land in question. Therefore, he is not the beneficiary in terms of money qua the transaction in question. Today, the situation is that the petitioner has lost the money and he could not get the possession or the title in the land in question and therefore, he has not derived any benefit from the document in question.
7.3 In view of the above discussion, here, it would be relevant to refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ''Mohammed Ibrahim & Others' (Supra) and more particularly, the observations made in Paragraphs- 14 to 17 thereof, which reads thus;
"14. An analysis of Section 464 of the Penal Code shows that it divides false documents into three categories:7
1. The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with Page 24 of 30 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:32:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14241/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed.
2. The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person.
3. The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.
In short, a person is said to have made a "false document", if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practising deception, or from a person not in control of his senses.
15. The sale deeds executed by the first appellant, clearly Page 25 of 30 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:32:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14241/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined and obviously do not fall under the second and third categories of "false documents". It therefore remains to be seen whether the claim of the complainant that the execution of sale deeds by the first accused, who was in no way connected with the land, amounted to committing forgery of the documents with the intention of taking possession of the complainant's land (and that Accused 2 to 5 as the purchaser, witness, scribe and stamp vendor, colluded with the first accused in execution and registration of the said sale deeds) would bring the case under the first category.
16. There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bona fide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of "false documents", it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by Page 26 of 30 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:32:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14241/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed.
17. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code are attracted."
7.4 In the light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as reproduced herein above, now, what is required to be considered is that the person, i.e. accused No.1-Shantaben Amrutlal Patel, who is alleged to have executed the agreement for sale in favour of the present petitioner, had chosen not to appear before the concerned Civil Court. In that view of the matter, it would be beneficial to refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'Sheila Sebastian' (Supra) in Paragraphs- 25 and 26, which runs as under;
"25. Keeping in view the strict interpretation of penal statute i.e. referring to rule of interpretation wherein natural Page 27 of 30 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:32:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14241/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined inferences are preferred, we observe that a charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a person who is not the maker of the same. As held in plethora of cases, making of a document is different than causing it to be made. As Explanation 2 to Section 464 further clarifies 9 that, for constituting an offence under Section 464 it is imperative that a false document is made and the accused person is the maker of the same, otherwise the accused person is not liable for the offence of forgery.
26. The definition of "false document" is a part of the definition of "forgery". Both must be read together. "Forgery" and "fraud" are essentially matters of evidence which could be proved as a fact by direct evidence or by inferences drawn from proved facts. In the case in hand, there is no finding » recorded by the trial court that the respondents have made any false document or part of the document/record to execute mortgage deed under the guise of that "false document". Hence, neither Respondent [ nor Respondent 2 can be held as makers of the forged documents. It is the imposter who can be said to have made the false document by committing forgery. In such an event the trial court as well as the appellate court misguided themselves by convicting the accused. » Therefore, the High Court has rightly acquitted the accused based on the settled legal position and we find no reason to interfere with the same."Page 28 of 30 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:32:46 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14241/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined 7.5 Keeping in mind the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the instant case also, learned APP, Mr. Raval, could not point out from the papers of charge-sheet anything or any evidence that the present petitioner fabricated any document and therefore, no offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC can be said to have made out against him. Since, in the beginning, the present petitioner filed the Civil Suit for specific performance by projecting himself as a bona fide, proposed purchaser of the land in question. Further, the material collected by the concerned investigating agency, during the course on investigation, also does not indicate anything against the present petitioner to show that the petitioner forged any document or the petitioner derived any actual benefit on the basis of the alleged agreement for sale executed by original accused No.1-Shantaben Amrutlal Patel in his favour.
7.6 Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of this case, so also the fact that there is a delay of nine years in lodging the impugned FIR, which is not sufficiently explained by the complainant-Respondent No.2 therein and that too, at a crucial stage, when the Civil Suit was at the stage of recording of the evidence, the lodging of the impugned FIR by the complainant-Respondent No.2 against the present petitioner is nothing, but, the abuse and the Page 29 of 30 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:32:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14241/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined misuse of the process of the law and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
8. Resultantly, this petition is ALLOWED and the impugned F.I.R., bearing bearing No. 11192011230258 of 2023, registered with Bopal Police Station, Ahmedabad, is hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicant only. Consequently, all other proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R. are also quashed and set aside qua the applicant. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) UMESH/-
Page 30 of 30 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 22:32:46 IST 2025