JIGNESHBHAI ARVINDBHAI PRAJAPATI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-2021-8-130
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on August 02,2021

Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Prajapati Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SANJAY CHANDRA VS. CBI [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

A.S.Supehia,J. - (1.)Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties through video conferencing.
(2.)The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with an FIR being C.R.No.I-11214020210094 of 2021 registered with Kamrej Police Station, Surat Rural District Surat for offences punishable under Sections 420, 120(B), 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (" the IPC").
(3.)The facts as narrated in the FIR are that, the first informant has two ancestral agricultural lands bearing Block No.2921, Survey No.315 and Block No.47, Survey No.379 respectively, both situated at Kholvad village and the same run in the name of first informant and his wife and his other four sisters jointly. It is stated that on 15.12.2020, the first informant was in receipt of a notice under Section 135(D) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 from the Mamlatdar pertaining to release of encumbrance and another for mutation of entry of a sale-deed, wherein along with name of the first informant and his wife and sisters, as accused no.3 to 6 were mentioned. It is alleged that the first informant applied to get copies under the RTI since he smelt something fishy.
3.1 It is further alleged that on 21.12.2020, the first informant received two power of attorneys and two sale deeds from the office of Mamlatdar and the first informant found that accused no.1 is a power of attorney holder of both powers are dated 21.02.2014 and 20.12.2018 pertaining to aforesaid two lands, whereas other accused persons have signed as witnesses and are identifier and notary. It is further alleged that the accused no.1 has also executed a declaration dated 22.10.2020 and accused no.2 has put her signature as witness. It is further alleged that both the power of attorneys are not executed by the first informant or his wife or any of his sisters and thus, accused no.1 has created bogus power of attorney.

3.2 It is further alleged that the accused no.1, in connivance with other co-accused persons, despite one of the sisters-Naynaben is in America, a bogus power is created by forging her signature and thumb impression and the bogus powers have been misused as correct and bogus sale deeds have been executed and thus, upon the aforesaid allegations, the FIR came to be filed.

3.3 It is further submitted that during the course of investigation in the aforesaid FIR, the name of the applicant came to be disclosed from the statement of the co-accused and he was arrested on 24.02.2021 by the Investigation Officer and he was also sent to the police remand and upon conclusion of investigation by the Investigation Officer, after collecting documentary evidence and recording statements of witnesses, charge-sheet came to be filed before the concerned Court.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.