IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 10890 of 2008 With CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 11241 of 2008 With CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 11134 of 2008 With CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 12368 of 2008 For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH sd/ =========================================
========================================= JOITARAM AMBALAL PATEL & 4 Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 Respondent(s) ========================================= Appearance :
CR.MA No. 10890 of 2008 Mr. S.V. Raju Ld. Sr. Adv with MR JAYPRAKASH UMOT for Applicant. CR.MA No. 11134 of 2008 Mr. P.M. Thakkar, Ld. Sr. Adv for Thakkar Associates for Applicant CR.MA No. 11241 of 2008 & CR.MA No. 12368 of 2008 Mr. A. S. Dave, for applicants Mr. Dabhi, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, MR VIRAL K SALOT for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 30/08/2012 CAV JUDGMENT
1.0 As common question of law and facts arise in this group of applications and as such to challenge the common FIR, all these applications are heard, decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2.0 Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 10890 of 2008 has been preferred by the petitioners hereinoriginal accused nos. 1,3,4, 6 and 7 to quash and set aside the impugned FIR being ICR No. 351 of 2008 registered with Sabarmati Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code.
2.1. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 11134 of 2008 has been preferred by the petitioner hereinoriginal accused no. 2 to quash and set aside the impugned FIR being ICRNo. 351 of 2008 registered with Sabarmati Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code.
2.2. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 11241 of 2008 has been preferred by the petitioner hereinoriginal accused no. 9 to quash and set aside the impugned FIR being ICRNo. 351 of 2008 registered with Sabarmati Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code.
2.3. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 12368 of 2008 has been preferred by the petitioner hereinoriginal accused no.8 to quash and set aside the impugned FIR being ICRNo. 351 of 2008 registered with Sabarmati Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code.
3.0 That the respondent no.2 herein original complainant Ashish Jayantilal Shah has lodged the impugned FIR being ICR No.351 of 2008 with the Sabarmati Police Station, Ahmedabad against the petitioners hereinoriginal accused for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code alleging inter alia that the petitioner no.1 hereinoriginal accused no.1 along with other coaccused had taken the complainant in confidence that they are the owners of the land in dispute. That thereafter, the complainant had given different cheques of Rs. 7,45,00,000/ from September 2007 to 3.4.2008 in respect of the purchase of the land. It is further alleged in the FIR that the accused persons has created forged power of attorney, for which explanations were sought by the respondent no.2original complainant. It is further alleged that even though the accused persons once again created forged documents by taking complainant in confidence, raised objections in respect of the land and accused nos. 1, 2 and 4 gave threat to the complainant at his office. It is further alleged in the said FIR that the original accused nos. 1, 2 and 8 approached the complainant along with declaration cum Kabulatnama of original land owners dated 14.9.2007 and took the complainant in confidence and therefore, the complainant agreed to purchase the land for sum of Rs. 7 crores out of which Rs.45 lacs were paid on account and as Banakhat amount on 19.9.2007 and the original accused no.1 executed the Banakhat in favour of the complainant. It is further alleged that thereafter complainant paid Rs.4,92,66,668/ to the original accused nos. 1, 3 to 7. That thereafter the complainant applied for title clearance certificate and issued public notice however no objections were received and as the complainant was not in a position to pay entire sale consideration and he could not manage for the finance and therefore, he agreed to sell the land to Mudra Real Estate Private Ltd. as confirming party for sale consideration of Rs. 7.45 crores and the sale deed was executed by the original owners in favour of the Mudra Real Estate Private Limited and the complainant received the amount of Rs.5,37,66,668/ which he had paid to the original owners. It is further averred in the said FIR that thereafter the Mudra Real Estate Private Limited obtained search report from their advocate H.Desai & Co. and applied for title clearance certificate by issuing public notice in the local newspaper “Sandesh” on dated 8.3.2008 and to that original accused no.9son of original accused no.8Amit Veljibhai Chaudhary by creating forged power of attorney of the original accused no.8 in his favour raised objection as power of attorney holder of the Veljibhai Jivabhai Chaudhary i.e. partner of earlier land owners. It is further alleged that as soon as the complainant received the aforesaid objections he approached the accused no. 1, 2 and 8 and get clarification and the original accused no. 1, 2 and 8 become agree and original accused no. 1 and 2 submitted the affidavit of only three coowners out of four coowners agreeing to sell the land. Therefore, it is alleged that the accused persons have hatched the conspiracy and in connivance with each other have prepared the false document and have played fraud with the complainant and the Mudra Real Estate Private Limited who has purchased the land from the complainant. That being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned FIR, the petitioners hereinoriginal accused nos. 1,2,3,4 and 6 to 9 have preferred the present Criminal Miscellaneous Applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4.0 Before considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective petitioners few facts which are necessary for the determination of the present applications are required to be considered which in nutshell are as under.
4.1. That the land bearing Survey Nos. 185/1 and 185/2 was belonging to (1) Atul Maganlal Chaudhary (2) Jesingbhai Valjibhai Chaudhary (3) Manilal Ganeshbhai Chaudhary and (4) Veljibhai Ganeshbhai Chaudhary. That the petitioner no.1original accused no.1 Joitaram Ambalal Patel purchased the said land admeasuring 5218 sq mtrs on 23.2.2004 from the aforesaid persons by registered sale deed registered with the office of the Sub Registrar, Gandhinagar for a consideration amount of Rs.10,41,000/. That the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner no.1 by accused no.1 Kantibhai Maganlal Chaudhary as a power of attorney holder of the aforesaid land owners which was a notarized Power of Attorney. That a declaration deed registered as Serial Nos. 2352 and 2354 were also executed by the original land owners. That on the basis of the aforesaid registered sale deed the name of the petitioner no.1original accused no.1 was entered into in the revenue record on 9.3.2004 vide entry no.5417 which was duly confirmed by the Mamlatdar on 28.12.2006 and since then the aforesaid land in question was in the name of petitioner no.1 original no.1. It appears that the respondent no.2 herein—original complainant wanted to buy the land of the petitioners and it was decided to purchase the land and therefore he contacted to petitioners in September 2007 and it was decided to purchase the said land for sale consideration of Rs. 7 crorers. Therefore, on 19.9.2007 respondent no.2 original complainant had given token amount by cheque of Rs. 45 lacs to the petitioner no.1 and according to the petitioner all the necessary documents were supplied by the petitioner no.1 to the respondent no.2. That on the basis of the aforesaid document public notice was published by Advocate Shri Hiren P. Vyas on behalf of the respondent no.2 in Gujarat Samachar on 3.9.2007 inviting objections if any against the sale of the said land. That no objection was received by the Advocate of the original complainant and therefore, a title clearance certificate was issued by the advocate of the original complainant in respect to the aforesaid land. It appears that thereafter notarized agreement to sell was executed by the petitioner no.1original accused no.1 in favour of respondent no.1 original complainant for which Rs. 4,92,66,668/ was paid to the petitioner no.1 original accused no.1. It appears that respondent no.2 hereinoriginal complainant was not in a position to remit the balance amount of sale consideration and therefore, he decided to sell the land to one Mudra Real Estate Private Limited. It appears that in order to ascertain the title of the land, the said proposed purchaser got a public notice issued through his lawyer M/s. H. Desai & Co. which was published in Sandesh Newspaper on 4.12.2007. That thereafter on 29.2.22008 registered sale deed was executed between the petitioner of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 10890 of 2008 and the aforesaid Mudra Real Estate Private Ltd and respondent no.2 herein original complainant signed the said sale deed as a confirming party. It appears and it is not in dispute that when the aforesaid registered sale deed was executed in favour of Mudra Real Estate Private Ltd which was signed by the respondent no.2 original complainant as confirming party he was returned the amount of Rs. 5,37,66,668/. It appears that thereafter on 8.3.2008 another public notice for the title clearance was got published in the “Sandesh” Newspaper by M/s.
H. Desai and Company inviting objections in respect of the aforementioned land. That on 24.3.2008 one objection on behalf of one of the original land owners namely Veljibhai Jivabhai Chaudhari was received by M/s. H. Desai & Company. It appears that thereafter on 2.4.2008 M/s. H. Desai & Company gave reply to the objection raised by the Veljibhai Jivabhai Chaudhary by registered post A.D through his power of attorney accused no.9 Amit Veljibhai Chaudhary as power of attorney holder of the Veljibhai Jivabhai Chaudhary one of the original coowner submitted the objections which gave rise to the complainant to lodge the impugned FIR against all the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned FIR, the petitioners herein have preferred the present Criminal Miscellaneous Applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5.0 Shri S.V. Raju, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the original accused no. 3,4,6 and 7 and Shri P.M. Thakkar, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the original accused no.2. Learned counsel for the original accused nos. 1 to 8 have vehemently submitted that as such respondent no.2 hereinoriginal complainant has no locus and / or cause to file impugned FIR against the petitionersaccused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that admittedly in the FIR itself the complainant has admitted that he has received the amount of Rs. 5,37,66,668/ from the accused and therefore, as such there is no loss sustained / caused by the original complainant. It is submitted that even admittedly the original owners petitioner no.1 and others have executed sale deed in favour of Mudra Real Estate Pvt Ltd. and the said Mudra Real Estate Pvt Ltd has not lodged any complaint and / or made any grievance. It is submitted that even the Settlement Agreement dated 6.5.2008 was entered into between the petitioners and respondent no.2 under which the petitioners have returned the amount to the respondent no.2 by different cheques as stated in the settlement agreement. Thus, as on date no loss is caused to the complainant respondent no.2. Therefore, it is submitted that as such there was no entrustment of any property to the respondent no.2 herein original complainant and therefore, as such it cannot be said that the petitioners have committed any offence as alleged.
5.1. It is further submitted that even as per the report dated 4.9.2008 filed by the Police Sub Inspector, Adalaj Police Station no evidence is found against the petitioners. It is submitted that as per the said report the cheque no. 592653 dated 21.6.2004 given to Veljibhai Haribhai Chaudhary has been deposited in his account and thereafter amount has been withdrawn by him. It is further submitted that even the Veljibjai and others three Chaudharys original land owners executed the declaration deed dated 14.9.2007 in which they have admitted that the sale deed dated 23.2.2004 is binding to them and they have received the amount by cheques.
5.2. It is further submitted that even Veljibhai Jivabhai Chaudhary had filed Special Civil Suit No.142 of 2008 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhinagar in respect of the disputed land, wherein the petitioner no.1 and other accused persons are joined as defendants. It is submitted that in the aforesaid Civil Suit the power of attorney holder of Veljibhai Jivabhai Chaudhary had given a purshish vide Exh.54 to withdraw the suit unconditionally and accordingly by order dated 18.12.2008 the suit came to be disposed off. It is submitted that therefore, even the Veljibhai Jivabhai Chaudhary on whose behalf the original accused no. 9 raised the objection as his power of attorney accepted sale deed executed by the petitioners herein, in favour of the Mudra Real Estate Pvt Ltd and therefore, even the title in favour Mudra Real Estate Pvt Ltd is also clear and nobody has raised any objection thereafter.
5.3. It is further submitted that even respondent no.2 hereinoriginal complainant through his advocate issued public notice in Gujarat Samachar dated 3.9.2007 and thereafter since no objection was raised by the advocate for respondent no.2original complainant, title clearance certificate was issued in respect to the disputed land and thereafter notarized agreement to sell was executed by the petitioner no.1 in favour of the respondent no.2 original complainant. It is submitted that thereafter as the respondent no. 2 complainant was not in a position to remit the balance amount, respondent no.2 decided to sell the land to one Mudra Real Estate Pvt Ltd and therefore, the sale deed was executed by the petitioners in favour of the said Mudra Real Estate Pvt Ltd which was signed by the respondent no.2 hereinoriginal complainant as confirming party. It is submitted that even the said sale deed was executed by the petitioners in favour of the Mudra Real Estate Pvt Ltd, after the said Mudra Real Estate Pvt Ltd got a public notice issued through its lawyer M/s. H. Desai & Co in Sandesh Newspaper on 4.12.2007 and no objections were received. It is submitted that even thereafter also the lawyer of Mudra Real Estate Pvt Ltd had issued title clear certificate. Therefore, it is submitted that as such it cannot be said that the petitioners have committed any offences as alleged for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that as such so far as respondent no.2original complainant is concerned, he has no locus and / or cause to file a complaint / FIR for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code.
5.4. Learned counsel for the petitioners have heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Jaswantlal Nathalal reported in 1968 SC 700 and following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of their submissions that it cannot be said that the petitioners have committed any offence as alleged for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code.
(1). CBI vs. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd reported in (1996) 5 SCC 591.
(2). Devendra and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2009) 7 SCC 495
(3). V.Y. Jose vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2009 SC (supp) 59
(4). Mohammed Ibrahim and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751.
5.5. By making above submissions and relying upon above decisions, it is requested to allow the present Criminal Miscellaneous Applications and to quash and set aside the impugned FIR so far as petitioners original accused nos. 1,2,3,4 and 6 to 9 are concerned.
6.0 All these petitions are opposed by Shri K.V. Shelat, learned advocate for the original complainant. It is submitted by Shri Shelat, learned advocate for the original complainant that there are specific averments and allegations in the FIR prima faice making out case of cognizable offences of forgery, cheating, concocted the document and / or forging the document which was initially shown to the complainant and the same are required to be further investigated, it is requested not to exercise the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at this stage. It is submitted that forged document such as power of attorney of the original owners, forged declaration etc. were created and shown to the complainant and the complainant was taken into confidence thereby complainant agreed to purchase the land for a sale consideration of Rs. 7 crores, it is requested not to exercise the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted that in criminal matter the concept of locus standi would not be applicable and anybody put the criminal machinery in motion and therefore, merely because Mudra Real Estate Pvt Ltd has not filed FIR, the present FIR lodged by the complainant still would be maintainable and the allegation and averments in the FIR would be further investigated.
6.1. It is further submitted that now a days such modus operandi of creating cloud on the title by raising false and frivolous objection by the heirs of the original owners and thereafter to get some money are increasing and therefore, it is requested not to exercise the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further submitted that in the present case the original accused no.9 Amit Chaudhary son of one of the original co owner Veljibhai Jivabhai Chaudhary as a power of attorney has raised frivolous objections and tried to create cloud on the title of the land in question which was purchased for sale consideration of Rs. 7 crores, it is requested not to exercise the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the present applications.
7.0 Present applications are opposed by Shri Dabhi, learned APP for the respondent State. It is submitted that as such immediately on filing the FIR before investigation could be carried out the petitioners have approached this Court and since 2008 there is stay of further investigation. It is submitted that as such the allegation and averment made in the FIR are required to be further investigated by the Investigating Officer and looking to the serious allegations of creating forged document and thereby creating confidence in favour of respondent no.2, it is requested not to exercise the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not to quash and set aside the impugned FIR at this stage. It is submitted that number of other documents which are alleged to have been concocted and forged one are required to be still calculated by the Investigating Officer and therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present applications.
8.0 Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that respondent no.2original complainant has lodged the impugned FIR against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. It is an admitted position and even so stated in the impugned FIR that initially the agreement to sell in favour of the respondent no.2 hereinoriginal complainant was executed by the original accused no.2 as power of attorney holder of the original land owners inclusive of the original accused nos. 1 and 3 to 7 to sell the land bearing survey nos. Survey Nos. 185/1 and 185/2 for a sale consideration of Rs. 7 crores. It is also not in dispute that even before the sale deed was executed in favour of the complainant, the complainant himself obtained the title clearance certificate from his advocate after giving public notice and inviting the objections. Admittedly, at the relevant time nobody raised the objection and therefore, learned advocate for the original complainant issued title clearance certificate and only thereafter the original land owners through their power of attorney executed the agreement to sell. It is also not in dispute that thereafter as respondent no.2 original complainant was not in a position to pay balance sale consideration due to his financial condition and therefore, he agreed to sell the aforesaid land in favour of one Mudra Real Estate Private Ltd for sale consideration of Rs. 7.45 crores and even the said Mudra Real Estate Private Ltd issued public notice through their advocate M/s.
H. Desai & Co inviting the objections if any, by publishing the same in the local newspaper and as no objections were received at the relevant time the original land owners executed the registered sale deed in favour of Mudra Real Estate Private Ltd for sale consideration of Rs. 7.45 crores and admittedly the respondent no.2original complainant has signed the same as confirming party. It is also an admitted position that at the time when the registered sale deed dated 29.2.2008 was executed by the original land owners inclusive of the petitioners herein, the petitioners herein original accused nos. 1 and 3 to 7 returned the amount of Rs.5,37,66,668/ to the respondent no.2 hereinoriginal complainant by cheques which have been received by him and credited in his account. Therefore, as such the aforesaid land has been sold in favour of the Mudra Real Estate Pvt Ltd by registered sale deed by the original land owners i.e. accused nos. 1 and 3 to 7 and the said sale deed has been signed by the respondent no.2 hereinoriginal complainant as confirming party. Therefore, as such there is no entrustment of any land or property to the respondent no.2 herein original complainant. It is also an admitted position that amount which was paid by the respondent no.2 herein towards Bana amount i.e. Rs.5,37,66,668/ has been returned by the accused nos.1 and 3 to 7 to the respondent no.2 original complainant which have been accepted by him. It appears that the aforesaid amount has been returned to the complainant under the Settlement Agreement dated 6.5.2008. Therefore, as such there is no loss caused to the respondent no.2 hereinoriginal complainant and therefore, as such there is no cause for the complainant to file complaint against the petitioners herein – original accused nos. 1,2,3,4 and 6 to 9 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code.
Therefore, as such the respondent no.2 hereinoriginal complainant has no locus to file impugned FIR at least against the petitioners herein original accused nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 9 that too for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code.
8.1. It appears that subsequently and after the sale deed was executed by the accused no. 1 and 3 to 7 in favour of Mudra Real Estate Pvt Ltd dated 29.2.2008 which was signed by respondent no.2 hereinoriginal complainant as confirming party, the son of the original accused no.8 and power of attorney holder of one Veljibhai Jivabhai Chaudhary i.e. Amit Veljibhai Chaudhary raised the objection in response to the public notice dated 8.3.2008 which was issued by the Mudra Real Estate Pvt Ltd issued through their Advocate M/s. H Desai & Co and therefore, as the said accused tried to create cloud on the title of the land which was purchased by Mudra Real Estate Pvt Ltd, the respondent no.2 herein original complainant has lodged the impugned FIR. Merely because the original accused no.9 might have raised the objection with a mala fide intention and to create cloud on the title of the land in question which was purchased by Mudra Real Estate Pvt Ltd it is not appreciable how it can be said that the petitioners herein original accused nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 9 have committed any offences as alleged. It is also required to be noted at this stage that so far as Mudra Real Estate Pvt Ltd who is the purchaser of the aforesaid land in question and who has been entrusted with the property has not lodged any FIR. It is also required to be noted at this stage that earlier one of the coowner of the aforesaid land Shri Veljibhai Jivabhai Chaudhary instituted the Special Civil Suit No.142 of 2008 which ultimately came to be withdrawn by him. It is also required to be noted at this stage that even thereafter nobody has raised any objection against the sale deed in favour of Mudra Real Estate Pvt Ltd. Under the circumstances, when there has not been any entrustment of the property to the respondent no.2 hereinoriginal complainant and in fact there is no loss caused to him and when the entire amount which was paid by him towards Bana amount has been returned to him under the Settlement Agreement dated 6.5.2008 and when he himself has signed the registered sale deed executed by the original owner petitioners hereinoriginal accused no. 1 and 3 to 7 in favour of Mudra Real Estate Pvt Ltd as confirming party it is not appreciable the reasons for which respondent no.2 hereinoriginal complainant to lodge the impugned FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and that to against the petitioners. Therefore, as such respondent no.2 hereinoriginal complainant has no locus to lodge the impugned complaint for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code when neither he is affected nor any loss caused to him nor there is entrustment of property to him. As stated above, the Mudra Real Estate Pvt Ltd which has purchased the aforesaid land in question by registered sale deed and which has been entrusted with the property has not lodged any FIR. Under the circumstances, it appears to the Court that as such impugned FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law and Court which deserves to be quashed and set aside.
8.2. As stated above there is no entrustment of the aforesaid land in favour of the respondent no.2original complainant. Under the circumstances, considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaswantlal Nathalal (supra) it cannot be said that petitioners original accused nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 9 have committed any offence under Section 405 (406) of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly when the entire amount which was paid by the respondent no.2herein original complainant has been returned to him, which was paid towards Bana amount i.e. Rs. 5,37,66,668/ it cannot be said that the petitioners original accused nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 9 have committed any offence as alleged under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code If the intention of the petitioners was to cheat the respondent no.2original complainant in that case they would not have returned the amount of Rs. 5,37,66,668/ to the respondent no.2original complainant.
8.3. Similarly there is no even prima facie case made out against the petitioners for the rest of the offences. As stated above, as such the original complainant has no locus to file impugned FIR. The contention on behalf of the original complainant that anybody can move the criminal machinery in motion is concerned, when the allegation by the complainant is with respect to the property and against him of impersonation, certainly the locus standi of the complainant is required to be considered and would play an important role.
8.4. Even otherwise, as stated above even from the bare averments and allegations in the impugned FIR, it cannot be said that petitioners have committed any offence as alleged for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. Under the circumstances, it appears to the Court that this is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Hariyana & Others vs. Bhajanlal & Others reported in 1992 (1) Suppl. SCC 335, the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed and set aside so far as petitioners herein original accused nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 9 are concerned.
9.0 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all the applications succeed and the impugned FIR being ICRNo. 351 of 2008 registered with Sabarmati Police Station, Ahmedabad is hereby quashed and set aside so far as petitioners herein original accused nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 9 are concerned. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
“kaushik”
sd/ ( M. R. Shah, J. )