Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R.NO. 11208051221364 of 2022 registered with B Division Police Station, Rajkot.

2. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the father of the present applicant - Jaswantsinh Saran had executed an agreement to sale for the land in question in favour of one Mandhatasinh Jhala and Krushnasinh Jhala after receiving sum of Rs.10 lacs towards consideration out total agreed consideration of Rs.50 lacs. The land at that time was a new tenure land, which was subsequently converted into an old tenure land. Thereafter, it was agreed between the parties that the deceased - father of the applicant shall transferr the said land in the name of Mandhatasinh Jhala and Krushnasinh NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19870/2023 ORDER DATED: 13/12/2023 undefined Jhala or any other person whose name would be given by these persons. Thereafter, on 12.03.2014, the deceased - father of the applicant had executed an agreement to sale in favour of husband of the first informant viz. Kamlesh Ramani for consideration of Rs.1.05 crores. It is alleged against the present applicant that he had forged the order passed by the competent authority converting the land from new tenure land to old tenure land. The present applicant has not forged any such order nor any such forged order has been pressed into service by the present applicant.

2.1 Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the land in question was duly converted into old tenure from new tenure and the necessary order in that regard had already been passed by the revenue authorities and on the basis of the said order passed by the revenue authorities, an agreement of sale was executed in favour of Krushnasinh Jhala and Kripalsinh Rana. The revenue authorities had carried out detailed verification before the registering the said sale-deed and it was found that the revenue authorities had passed the order for converting the land from new tenure to old tenure on 21.04.2022.

3. Learned APP has opposed the present application, inter alia, contending that the present applicant had forged the orders of the revenue authorities showing that the land in question had been converted into old tenure from new tenure. However, subsequently, it was found that the order, which was pressed into service by the present applicant and his father was forged. Actually, the order for conversion of land into old tenure came to be passed by the revenue authorities on 21.04.2022. She, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present application.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the original complainant has opposed the present application, inter alia, contending that on the basis of the forged documents, the applicant had received the amount of consideration from the present first informant. He, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present application.

5. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. From the record, it appears that the present applicant and his deceased - father had hatched a conspiracy for selling the disputed land to the first informant and had received part consideration from her and an agreement to sale was also executed in her favour. However, no sale-deed was executed by the present applicant or his deceased- father in favour of the first informant. The present applicant and his deceased - father had convinced the first informant that originally the land in question was a new tenure land, which was converted into an old tenure land and had also produced a copy of the order purported to have been passed by the revenue authorities converting the land in question from new tenure to NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19870/2023 ORDER DATED: 13/12/2023 undefined old tenure. The said order was dated 27.03.2021. Thereafter, the husband of the first informant had carried out the verification of the said order from the concerned authorities and it was found that the said order was not genuine and was a forged order. Thus, the present applicant and his deceased-father had shown the first informant an order, which was forged and on the basis of the said order, had entered into an agreement to sale with the present informant and had also collected part consideration from her. The Investigating Officer has also inquired about the order dated 27.03.2021 from the concerned revenue authorities and the concerned revenue authorities have replied to the Investigating Officer that the order dated 27.03.2021 purportedly passed by the revenue authorities converting the land from new tenure to old tenure, no such order has been passed by the Office of Mamlatdar on 27.03.2021. Thus, record of the revenue authorities is sought to be forged in the present case. It is sought to be contended on behalf of the present applicant that there is nothing on record to indicate that the document in question was forged by the present applicant. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the present applicant was aware about the fact that the order dated 27.03.2021, which was pressed into service by him and his deceased - father was not a genuine order.