IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 12557 of 2005 For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
========================================================= KALIDASBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL & 2 - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance :
MR PR NANAVATI for Applicant(s) : 1 - 3.
MR LB DABHI ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, MR GAURANG K PATEL for Respondent(s) : 2, =========================================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date : 24/01/2012 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioners – original accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 to quash and set aside the impugned criminal proceedings arising out of Criminal Case No.384 of 2004 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Ahmedabad as well as to quash and set aside the order passed thereon directing the said complaint for police investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During the pendency of the present proceedings, the petitioners are chargesheeted for the offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 506(2), 120(B) and 114 of Indian Penal Code and therefore, the petitioners have also prayed to quash and set aside the chargehsheet filed in the said Criminal Case No. 384 of 2004.
2.00. That the respondent No.2 – original complainant has filed a private compliant under section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioners and others in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Ahmedabad (Rural) for the offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 506(2), 120(B) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, alleging inter-alia that the petitioner No.1 has created forged Will alleged to have been executed by one Ratibhai Madhabhai Patel – original land owner in which the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 – original accused Nos.2 and 3 have attested the said Will knowing fully well that the said Will is forged one and thereafter the said Will has been produced before the revenue authorities and the name of the petitioner No.1 was mutated in the revenue record on the basis of the said forged Will by producing the said forged Will before the Talati-cum-Mantri and the Mamlatdar. That initially the learned Magistrate passed an order to send the said complaint for police investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it was sent to Sola High Court Police Station for investigation. That thereafter the concerned police officer of the Sola High Court Police Station registered the complaint as M.Case No.3 of 2004 and after conclusion of the investigation, the investigating officer has submitted chargesheet before the learned Magistrate against the petitioners and others for the offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 506(2), 120(B) and 114 of Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the original complaint as well as chargesheet filed against the petitioners in the said complaint for the offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 506(2), 120(B) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, petitioners - original accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 have preferred present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3.00. Mr.Mehta, learned advocate appearing for Mr.Premal Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has vehemently submitted that the petitioners have not committed the offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 506(2), 120(B) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, as alleged. It is further submitted that even thereafter there was a settlement with the original complainant and therefore, it is requested to quash and set aside the impugned complaint as well as chargesheet.
3.01. Mr.Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has further submitted that a Special Civil Suit was also filed by the heirs of Ratilal Madhabhai Patel and there was settlement with the heirs of the original owner in the said suit and therefore, it is requested to allow the present petition.
4.00. Present petition is opposed by Mr.L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He has submitted that on investigation it has been established beyond doubt that the petitioner No.1 has forged Will alleged to have been executed by original owner Ratilal Madhabhai and knowing fully well that the said Will was forged one, he produced it before the Mamlatdar and Talati-cum-Mantri and tried to get his name mutated in the revenue record. It is submitted that even the petitioner No.1 in his statement has categorically admitted that whatever has been done by him was as per the advise of the advocate to whom he has paid Rs.10,000 and created forged Will and even obtained signatures of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 as attested witnesses on the said Will. Therefore, it is submitted that when having found more than prima facie case against the petitioners when they are chargesheeted for the offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 506(2), 120(B) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, it is requested to dismiss present petition.
5.00. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length and also considered the investigation papers produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for perusal of the Court and it appears that the prosecution having found prima facie case has filed chargesheet against the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 506(2), 120(B) and 114 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. It is also required to be noted at this stage that even the petitioner No.1 herein has categorically admitted in his statement that as he wanted to get his name mutated in the revenue record and get the property of the original owner – Ratilal Madhabhai Patel, who was his relative, he contacted one advocate and that advocate told him that it can be done provided Will is forged and he told him to pay Rs.10,000 and he agreed to pay Rs.10,000/- and thereafter the said advocate purchased stamp paper of Rs.20/-; created Will alleged to have been executed by original land owner Ratilal Madhabhai Patel and thereafter petitioner No.1 obtained signature of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 on the said Will as attested witnesses and thereafter advocate got it notarised and thereafter petitioner No.1 paid Rs.10,000/- to the advocate and thereafter he purchased the said Will before the Talati-cum-Mantri and the Talati-cum-Mantri made mutation entry in his favour on the basis of the said forged Will. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and even investigation papers, it cannot be said that the petitioners have not committed the offences as alleged and they are falsely implicated in the offence and therefore, chargesheet filed against them for the offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 506(2), 120(B) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, deserves to be quashed and set aside. When on investigation a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners and when they are chargesheeted for the offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 506(2), 120(B) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, merely because there might be some settlement subsequently in the civil proceedings, the impugned criminal proceedings and/or chargesheet is not required to be quashed and set aside. Under the circumstances, no case is made out to quash and set aside the impugned criminal proceedings and/or chargesheet filed against the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 506(2), 120(B) and 114 of Indian Penal Code.
6.00. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present petition fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier, if any stands vacated forthwith.
rafik [M.R. SHAH, J.]