HARSHADBHAI MATILAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these applications arise out of the same first information report and facts are also similar. Hence, the matters were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) BY these applications under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the applicants have prayed to quash the first information report registered vide Naranpura Police Station I ­ C.R. No.244/2008 for the alleged offences punishable under sections 420, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, which has been lodged by the respondent No.2 herein against the applicants of both these applications.

(3.) MR . P. M. Thakkar, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the applicants in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.6007 of 2008 submitted that the background of the case is that there is a dispute between the father namely, accused No.2 and the first informant. A civil suit came to be instituted by the first informant against the father and uncle as well as Devnandan Commercial & Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and others. The application exhibit-5 seeking interim injunction filed in the said suit came to be rejected. The appeal from order against the order passed by the trial court came to be dismissed; and the review application seeking review of the said order also came to be rejected. Thereafter, the present first information report has been lodged alleging commission of the above referred offences. Inviting attention to the record of the application, it was pointed out that the applicants therein had purchased land admeasuring 5173 square yards of sub-plot No.B of survey No.190 by a registered sale deed dated 2.4.2004. The entire amount under the said sale deed amounting to rupees ninety three lakh has been paid to the first informant and has been credited in his account. Attention was invited to the sale deed executed by the first informant to point out that the payment of the amount of rupees ninety three lakhs is admitted in the sale deed itself and that subsequently, the first informant and his wife have also filed an affidavit acknowledging the execution of the above referred sale deed as well as the receipt of the amount of rupees ninety three lakhs towards execution of the same. It was submitted that survey No.190 of Ghatlodiya is a big parcel of land and individual holders, all belonging to the same family have sold their individual shares by executing separate sale deeds. The attention of the court was drawn to the various sale deeds executed by the father, uncle, mother and cousin of the first informant in favour of the applicants herein. Referring to the FIR, it was pointed out that despite the aforesaid position, in the FIR, the first informant has stated that land admeasuring 14,362 square yards is the ancestral property of the first informant and that he is jointly in possession thereof with his other family members. It was submitted that the first information report is lodged on 24.5.2008 whereas, by virtue of various sale deeds executed between 2.4.2004 to 18.6.2005, land totally admeasuring 14,362 square yards of survey No.190 of Ghatlodia had been sold to the applicants herein, after which, the first informant and his family members ceased to have any right, title or interest in the said land. Despite which, a categorical assertion has been made in the first information report to the effect that the said land is still being held by the first informant along with his family members. Referring to the judgment of the trial court on the application exhibit-5, it was pointed out that the trial court has observed that constructions have already been put up on the said land and allotments have already been made to individual members. It was submitted that under the circumstances, it is apparent that the first informant has not come out with correct facts even in the first information report. It was argued that, thus, there is suppression of material facts inasmuch as, the first informant has not mentioned the fact regarding having received rupees ninety three lakhs towards sale of the lands held by him as well as the fact regarding the civil dispute which was pending in the civil court, and has filed the present first information report saying that he has executed the sale deed, but not signed the documents before AUDA. It was submitted that Devnandan Society has purchased the entire parcel of land and what is subject matter of the first information report are the documents alleged to have been executed in the year 2004 alleging that he has got less than his rightful share out of the sale proceeds from the sale of the said lands. Reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Singh (Dead) Through LRs v. Gurpal Singh and others, (2010) 8 SCC 775, for the proposition that prompt and early reporting of the occurrence by the informant with all its vivid details gives an assurance regarding truth of its version. In case there is some delay in filing the FIR, the complainant must give explanation for the same. Undoubtedly, delay in lodging the first information report does not make the complainant's case improbable when such delay is properly explained. However, deliberate delay in lodging the complaint is always fatal. The court held that in cases where there is a delay in lodging an FIR, the court has to look for a plausible explanation for such delay. In the absence of such an explanation, the delay may be fatal. It was submitted that in the facts of the present case, in the proceedings before the civil court, the first informant was well aware that constructions have already been made on the lands in question and that the houses have been allotted to the members, despite which, he has waited till the year 2008 and without any plausible reason for seeking the documents in question, made an application before the AUDA under the Right to Information Act, seeking copies of documents submitted for the purpose of obtaining permission for putting up constructions on the lands in question and at a belated stage, lodged the first information report alleging that the signatures have been forged.