KRUNAL NATUBHAI PATEL THROUGH POA NATUBHAI AMBALAL PATEL vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Court
Gujarat High Court

R/CR.MA/11850/2018 (GJHC240352512018) JUDGMENT DATED:
03/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 11850 of 2018

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
KRUNAL NATUBHAI PATEL THROUGH POA NATUBHAI AMBALAL PATEL
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JA ADESHRA(107) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
YUVRAJ BHRAMBHATT APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

Date : 03/09/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present application, the Applicant has prayed
for quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR being C.R. No. I-
39/17, registered with Borsad City Police Station, District Anand,
by Respondent No. 2 herein, on 19.04.2017, for the offences
punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the
IPC.
2. The facts in nutshell are to the effect that:-
2.1 The land bearing Survey No. 1835, situated at Borsad,
originally stood in the name of Kanchanbhai Dhanabhai Patel,
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 18:13:18 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/11850/2018 (GJHC240352512018) JUDGMENT DATED:
03/09/2026
who died on 10.05.1988. Since his legal heirs had gone to
America, they could not get their names entered in the revenue
records by way of inheritance within the prescribed time. Taking
undue advantage of the same and with an intention to usurp the
said land, accused Nos. 1 and 2 entered into a conspiracy and
created a fictitious person in the name of Kanchanbhai
Dhanabhai Patel and, by preparing forged and fabricated
documents and arranging false witnesses and persons to identify
the said fictitious person, accused No. 1 executed a bogus sale
deed in respect of the said land on 22.07.2013, which was
registered as Sale Deed No. 1315/2013.
2.2 Thereafter, accused No. 1 got Mutation Entry No. 48246
recorded and certified in the revenue records and got his name
entered in the 7/12 extract in respect of the said land.
Subsequently, accused No. 1 executed and registered a sale
deed in favour of accused No. 2 on 13.11.2013, which was
registered as Sale Deed No. 1952/2013, and got the
corresponding transaction entered in the revenue records.
2.3 Thus, it is alleged that the accused persons, in furtherance of
their conspiracy, prepared forged and fabricated documents,
knowingly used such forged documents as genuine, and aided
and abetted each other in the commission of the aforesaid
offences, along with other related acts and circumstances. Hence,
present Petition.
3. Learned Advocate for the Applicant would submit that the
land in question was purchased by the present Applicant from
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 18:13:18 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/11850/2018 (GJHC240352512018) JUDGMENT DATED:
03/09/2026
Sunitaben, daughter of Ravjibhai Jivabhai Patel, by way of a
registered sale deed dated 13.11.2013, bearing Registration No.
1952/2013, and that the name of Sunitaben was reflected in the
revenue records.
3.1 It is further submitted that Sunitaben, daughter of Ravjibhai
Jivabhai Patel, had purchased the said land from Kanchanbhai
Dhanabhai Patel by way of a registered sale deed dated
22.07.2013, bearing Registration No. 1315/2013.
3.2 It is therefore submitted that the present Applicant is a
subsequent purchaser and has nothing to do with the alleged
offence.
3.3 Learned Advocate for the Applicant would further submit
that none of the provisions of Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and
120-B of the IPC would be attracted, as the property purchased
by the Applicant was standing in the name of Sunitaben, though
the title may be clouded. However, mere purchase of a property
having a clouded title would not, by itself, amount to forgery.
Forgery involves making a false document with the intention of
causing it to be believed that such document was made or
executed by a person by whom it was not, in fact, made or
executed. Thus, if the offence of forgery is not made out, the
question of attracting Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC
would not arise.
3.4 As far as Section 120-B of the IPC is concerned, Learned
Advocate for the Applicant would submit that even if the
allegations in the impugned FIR are taken on the face of it and
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 18:13:18 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/11850/2018 (GJHC240352512018) JUDGMENT DATED:
03/09/2026
even assuming that there was a conspiracy, the factual aspect of
the sale by Sunitaben in favour of the present Applicant is not in
dispute. Hence, Section 120-B of the IPC would also not be
attracted.
3.5 Even otherwise, the Applicant has handed back the
property in question to Sunitaben, and she has already handed
over the said property to the original owner, and thus, the
dispute between the parties has been settled.
4. Though served none appears of the Original Complainant –
Respondent No. 2 herein.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that a
prima facie case is made out from a bare reading of the FIR. It is
further submitted that this Court ought not to reappreciate the
evidence or conduct a mini-trial at this stage. He, therefore,
urged that the present application be rejected.
6. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.
6.1 This Court has gone through the FIR. The fact that the
present Applicant purchased the land in question from Sunitaben
is not in dispute. Even if the title of Sunitaben was clouded or she
had committed any wrongdoing, the present Applicant, being a
subsequent purchaser, cannot be held responsible for the same
in the absence of any specific allegation.
6.2 In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case,
one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 465
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 18:13:18 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/11850/2018 (GJHC240352512018) JUDGMENT DATED:
03/09/2026
of the IPC, namely, forgery, is not made out against the present
Applicant. There is no allegation or material to show that the
present Applicant had prepared or executed any forged or
fabricated document or had impersonated any person.
6.3 Under such circumstances, the essential ingredients
of the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and
120-B of the IPC are not made out against the present Applicant.
7. In view of the above, the captioned petition stands allowed.
The impugned FIR being C.R. No. I-39/17, registered with Borsad
City Police Station, District Anand, by Respondent No. 2 herein,
on 19.04.2017, for the offences punishable under Sections 465,
467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC along with all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom qua the present applicant, stands
quashed and set aside.
8. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
MMP
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 18:13:18 IST 2026