- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
KACHARAJI NATHAJI THAKOR v. STATE OF GUJARAT
R/CR.MA/1614/2012 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 1614 of 2012
========================================================== KACHARAJI NATHAJI THAKOR & 1....Applicant(s) Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
========================================================== Appearance:
MR EE SAIYED, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 2 MR SIKANDER SAIYED, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 2 MR AM PAREKH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR KL PANDYA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No.1 ==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 28/08/2015
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Pandya, the learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1- State of Gujarat. Mr. A.M. Parekh, the learned advocate waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.2- original first informant.
2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants-original accused seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court for quashing of the F.I.R. being C.R. No.I- 43 of 2011 filed before the Bavlu Police Station, Mehsana, for the offence punishable under Sections-465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the
I.P.C.
3. The case of the first informant in brief may be stated as under:-
Page 1 of 3
3.1. The dispute pertains to a parcel of a land bearing revenue survey no.1 paikee 10 and survey no.32 situated in the sim of mouje village- Shedfa, Taluka Kadi. It is alleged that one Dakshaben Sureshbhai wanted to get her name mutated in the record of the rights with respect to the property of the first informant fraudulently. It is the case of the first informant that his grand father had passed away in September, 1996, whereas, on 28.10.1996, the thumb impressions of the grand- father were shown on the 135(d) notice. Such thumb impressions were identified by the two accused herein as those of the grand-father of the first informant. To put it in brief the allegations that an attempt was made by Dakshaben in collusion with the Talati-cum-Mantri to create a false family pedigree. It needs to be noted that the allegations of committing the offence are of the year 1996. There is no explanation coming forward from the first informant as to why it took almost 16 years to complaint about the same to the Collector, Mehsana.
3.2 It appears that for the first time on 12.03.2011, a complaint was lodged before the Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by the Collector of the District in this regard.
3.3 Thereafter, on 16.08.2011 i.e. almost after a period of 05 months from the date of the complaint before the SIT, the FIR was lodged.
3.4 It is not in dispute that the only allegations against the applicants herein are that of identifying the thumb impressions of the person, who was dead and gone in September, 1996. There are no other allegations against the applicants herein. It is not alleged that they were responsible in any manner for creating false thumb impressions.
4. More importantly, the disputed entry in the record of rights was carried further in RTS Appeal before the Prant Officer, Mehsana and
Page 2 of 3
such entries with other documents were treated to be cancelled.
5. I am of the view that no useful purpose would now be served to allow the police to continue with the investigation so far as the two applicants are concerned.
6. In the result, this application is allowed. The F.I.R. being C.R. No.I-43 of 2011 filed before the Bavlu Police Station, Mehsana, is hereby ordered to be quashed so far as the two applicants are concerned in accordance with law.
Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)
aruna
Page 3 of 3
Alert