RAJKUMAR SUGNOMAL MAHERCHANDANI (Petition dismissed and not restored qua petitioner no.1) vs STATE OF GUJARAT

R/CR.MA/18033/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240480782014)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 18033 of 2014

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RAJKUMAR SUGNOMAL MAHERCHANDANI (Petition dismissed and not
restored qua petitioner no.1) & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SAMIR AFZAL KHAN(3733) for the Applicant(s) No. 2
PETITION/APPEAL WITHDRAWN/DISMISSED for the Applicant(s) No. 1
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

Date : 19/10/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that present petition
has been dismissed qua both the petitioners as per order dated
01.01.2025. However, it is restored only qua petitioner No. 2
Pratiksha Kamleshkumar Meherchandani and was not restored
qua Petitioner No. 1.
1.1. The petitioner before this court has invoked Section 482 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to quash and set aside FIR
being CR No. I-218 of 2014 lodged before the Sector 7
Gandhinagar Police Station for offenses punishable under Section
Page 1 of 9
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 18:32:02 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18033/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240480782014)
406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B of the IPC,
dated 13.10.2014.
2. The facts of the FIR are as under:-
“Date 13.10.2014
My name is Shambhubhai Keshavbhai Bhesaniya, aged 67 years,
occupation: retired, currently residing at Lunidhar, Taluka Kukavav,
District Amreli. Mobile No.: 9409271834.
Upon being asked in person, I hereby state and dictate the facts
of my complaint as follows: I reside at the above-mentioned
address with my wife and my son Bhavesh and his family, and I am
living a retired life. I retired from service upon attaining the age of
superannuation on 31/07/2006 while serving as a Talati-cum-Mantri
(Village Revenue Officer).
My second son, Anilbhai, resides with his family at Swagat City,
Adalaj. I also have two daughters, both of whom are married and
reside at their respective matrimonial homes. I have studied up to
the Old S.S.C. level. In the year 2010, we purchased 1,500 square
yards of land out of the land bearing Block No. 838 situated at
Adalaj village from Rushabh Gayaprasad Jain, who was the
constituted attorney of the original owners of the said land, namely
Nareshkumar Ranchhodbhai Patel, Sudhaben, widow of
Dashrathbhai Ranchhod Patel, Paras Dashrath Patel, and Viral
Dashrathbhai Patel. We paid the full consideration for the said land
and purchased it through Sale Deed No. 8740/2010 dated
05/05/2010. For the purpose of developing the said land, on
11/03/2011, we executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of
our acquaintance, Rajkumar Sugnomal Mehrchandani, residing at
801, Sopan Flat, Navrangpura, C. G. Road, Ahmedabad, before a
Notary Public. We granted him all rights and powers except the
power to sell the land. We had provided money to Rajkumar for the
purpose of securing shops in the scheme named Laxmi Balaji
Staters in the name of my son. However, even after approximately
three years had passed, the shops had not been constructed. This
aroused our suspicion, and upon making inquiries, we came to
know that there was no plan to construct shops under the Laxmi
Balaji Staters scheme. Furthermore, the plan for the same had not
been approved by GUDA. When we discussed this matter with
Rajkumar, he gave evasive replies. We also came to know that
Rajkumar had sold the flats constructed under the Laxmi Balaji
Staters scheme to more than one person. Consequently, we
registered an offence in this regard at Adalaj Police Station, and the
said case is currently pending.
Thereafter, disputes arose between us and Rajkumar in our
business dealings. By using the General Power of Attorney executed
by us, Rajkumar had launched a flat scheme named “Laxmi Balaji
Page 2 of 9
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 18:32:02 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18033/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240480782014)
Heritage” on our land bearing Survey No. 838. The application for
converting the said land to Non-Agricultural (N.A.) use and
obtaining permission for residential purposes had been made
through me. However, only N.A. permission had been granted.
When it came to our knowledge that Rajkumar had, without our
knowledge or consent, booked flats in the said scheme and
collected large sums of money from the public by deceiving them,
we issued a written notice through the Sandesh newspaper on
28/10/2013, revoking the Power of Attorney granted to him, and
thereby cancelled the said Power of Attorney. Thereafter, when we
obtained the necessary documents relating to our aforesaid land,
we came to know that Rajkumar, by relying upon the Power of
Attorney granted by us, had executed a sale deed dated
10/06/2014 in respect of our land in favour of his own brother’s
wife, Pratiksha Kamlesh Kumar Mehrchandani, residing at 318-B,
Sindhi Colony, Sardarnagar, Ahmedabad. In fact, under the Power
of Attorney executed by us, Rajkumar had been granted all powers
except the power to sell the land. However, Rajkumar Sugnomal
Mehrchandani removed the word “except” from the phrase “except
sale” in the Power of Attorney and inserted the word “regarding,”
thereby changing the wording to mean “regarding sale.” In this
manner, he prepared a forged Power of Attorney, used it as a
genuine document, produced it for the purpose of executing the
sale deed, and thereby executed the sale deed in question.
Although a total of 24 flats had been constructed under the Laxmi
Balaji Heritage scheme on the said land, the sale deed described
the property as vacant non-agricultural land for residential use.
Thus, after we had cancelled the Power of Attorney granted by us,
Rajkumar Sugnomal Mehrchandani, with the intention of unlawfully
usurping our valuable land, conspired with his own brother’s wife,
Pratiksha Kamlesh Kumar Mehrchandani. In furtherance of the
conspiracy, he tampered with the original Power of Attorney,
prepared a forged document, used it as a genuine document, and
sold our valuable land to his own brother’s wife, Pratiksha Kamlesh
Kumar Mehrchandani. In doing so, he committed criminal breach of
trust and cheating against us. Therefore, I lodge this complaint
against them, requesting that a lawful investigation be conducted
into the matter and appropriate legal action be taken against them.
If, during the investigation, it is found that any other person was
involved in this fraudulent act, I also request that appropriate legal
action be taken against such person. My witnesses are my son,
Anilbhai, and any other persons whose involvement or knowledge
may come to light during the investigation. The facts of my
complaint, as dictated by me and recorded above, are true and
correct.”
3. Learned Advocate Mr. Samir Afzal Khan for the petitioner
would submit that that the complainant who is a retired Talati had
th
executed a power of attorney on 11 March 2011 in favor of
accused No. 1 for the development of land ad-measuringq 1500
Page 3 of 9
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 18:32:02 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18033/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240480782014)
square yards of revenue block no. 838 lying at village Adalaj (at
the outskirts of village Adalaj).
3.1 It is further argued that the said land being agricultural land
was required to be converted for non-agricultural purpose for
which the necessary permission ought to be sought by
Shambhubhai Keshavbhai, and the Deputy Collector by order
th
dated 13 of February 2012 called upon Shambhubhai for
payment of premium for conversion from new tenure land to old
tenure land for non-agricultural purpose.
th
3.2 Similarly, another order was passed on 27 of March 2012
where also conditional permission was granted; thus, an amount
of Rs. 17,68,800/- was required to be deposited towards
premium, and such premium was paid by accused no. 1 by way
of demand draft in favour of the TDO Gandhinagar on 15.2.2012.
3.3 It is further argued that a further amount of Rs. 3,62,500/-
was deposited on 6.5.2010 with the Bank of Baroda in favour of
Shambhubhai, and the said amount was also deposited by
accused no. 1 so that the sale deed could be executed in favour
of Shambhubhai Keshavbhai. Thus, Shambhubhai being the
owner of the land and the same being a new tenure land was
required to be converted into old tenure land for non-agricultural
purpose, and that accused no. 1 had invested the amount and
started construction of Shree Laxmi Balaji Heritage.
3.4 It is further the case of the petitioner that Anilbhai, son of
Shambhubhai, had booked three flats being A101, A103, and
B102 in the name of relatives, and accused no.1 had issued
Page 4 of 9
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 18:32:02 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18033/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240480782014)
different receipts in respect of the booking of flats of Anilbhai,
Dheeraj Lal, and Deepak Kumar. The total price of the said flats
was amounting to Rs.95 lakhs out of which Anilbhai and two
others have made a payment of Rs. 40 lakhs and receipts to that
effect were also issued. However, the remaining amount of Rs. 55
lakh is due to be paid, which is to be paid at the time of
possession. Thus, it is argued that at least in respect of the said
scheme namely Shree Balaji Heritage, petitioner no. 1 has no
concern.
3.5 Thus, it is argued that accused no. 1 had since long
financial transactions between the family of the accused and the
family of the complainant, and with a view to avoid payment of
Rs.55 lakh rupees in respect of the three flats booked in the
scheme of Shree Balaji Heritage, the complainant Anilbhai has
wrongly involved the present accused along with accused no.1,
though accused no.1 has nothing to do with the said scheme
which was owned by Narayan Das Sugomal and his two sons.
3.6 Learned advocate further submitted that the complainant
had also sworn an affidavit on 27.12.2013 for clearing the
objection raised before the Gandhinagar Urban Development
Authority. Similarly, the complainant had also sworn an affidavit
for clearance of the file in respect to the conversion of the final
plot no. 109 of block/survey no. 838 situated at Adalaj and
declared for treating all those applications submitted in his name
to be cancelled and for clearance of the said land as non-
agriculture land.
3.7 Learned advocate further submitted that accused no.2
Page 5 of 9
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 18:32:02 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18033/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240480782014)
(petitioner no.2 herein) has not committed any offence as would
be also evident from the reading of the entire FIR, but has been
arraigned as an accused since she is the purchaser wherein, the
Complainant and his sons have also booked the flats.

3.8 It is further argued that the FIR prima facie does not
disclose the ingredients of cheating, inasmuch as the factum of
th
initially entering into the general power of attorney dated 11 of
March 2011 is alleged to have been executed giving power of all
other works to be carried out except for the purpose of selling the
property in question. However, subsequently when the said
power of attorney was registered, alteration was made to the
effect by scoring out the said word and granting all the
permissions including the sale permission in the said power of
attorney, pursuant to which the sale deed was executed in favour
of present petitioner no. 2.
3.9 However, subsequently also in 2014, a registered document
consenting to such sale was also executed by the complainant in
favour of Petitioner No.2 Pratiksha Kamleshkumar
Meherchandani, agreeing that the said sale deed executed on
10.6.2014 bearing no.8039 and thus accepted the said sale also.
3.10. Thus, it is argued that even the factum of having scored out
the power of attorney not giving any power to sell the said
property has been rectified and agreed upon by the complainant
himself by way of registered deed of acceptance in the year
2014, and under such circumstances, no case is made out qua
petitioner no.2.
Page 6 of 9
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 18:32:02 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18033/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240480782014)
4. Learned advocate Mr. Pradyuman Gohil appearing for the
complainant would submit that when allegations regarding a
criminal conspiracy has been made out, this court should not
quash the FIR at this very nascent stage when the investigation
is yet to be completed which has been stayed by this Court while
admitting the present Petition inasmuch as the petitioners have
not approaching this Court with clean hands and has suppressed
material facts.
4.1 That the Present petitioner was well aware from the facts
that the said land was handed over to the present Applicant and
other accused persons for the development of land by way of
power of attorney without giving any power to sell and with the
condition that he has to obtain non-agricultural permission and
other government permission for the land in question.
4.2 Learned Advocate would further submits that the present
Applicant alongwith other accused persons have launched
residential scheme in the name and style of Laxmi Balaji Heritage
which itself does not hold any valid permission for construction
and have constructed based on such illegal plan, not approved by
any Authority, more particularly, having not giving any authority
to sell the said property.
4.3 Learned Advocate would further submit that as soon as the
petitioner came to know about the forged power of attorney, the
same came to be terminated by the Public notice dated
28.10.2013 inasmuch as they had score the words without selling
rights and based on such false power of attorney has entered into
a sale deed with the present petitioner no.2 who is the sister in
Page 7 of 9
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 18:32:02 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18033/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240480782014)
law of the original Accused No.1.
4.4 Learned Advocate would further submit that Criminal Case
No. 4413 of 2016 is also pending against the present accused No.
2 and other persons pursuant to the FIR being CR No. I-6 /2016
dated 11.01.2016 lodged before the Adalaj Police Station, and
that this Court should not entertained the present Petition and
argued to reject the same.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that as
per the statements of various witnesses, despite having entered
into agreement and compromise, the petitioners are not acting in
accordance with the same and even not providing basic
amenities which should be available in any residential scheme,
and thus have also breached the undertaking/compromise
entered between the parties and thus, the accused persons has
developed the said flat without any permission from any
competent authority. Under such circumstances, the present
petition is required to be quashed and set aside.
6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the
complainant himself has executed a registered sale
deed(confirmation deed) with regards to the property in question
purchased by petitioner no.2 from petitioner no.1 based on the
power of attorney, wherein he has specifically and categorically
admitted that he is accepting the sale deed dated 10.6.2014
executed by Rajkumar Sugnomal Meherchandani (petitioner no.1)
and has also entered into a compromise agreement where the
said aspect is reflecting. In view of the same, no case is made out
of cheating under Section 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with
Page 8 of 9
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 18:32:02 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18033/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240480782014)
Section 120B of IPC, since the agreement of compromise is dated
th
9 December 2014, whereas the registered confirmation deed is
th
dated 9 December 2014 immediately after lodging of the FIR.
6.1 However, as regards allegations qua petitioner No. 1, this
court has not gone into the merits of the case of petitioner No. 1,
and the contentions with regards to no permission having been
obtained etc. are kept open.
6.2 It is also open for the Investigating agency to proceed
against the Original Accused No. 1 – petitioner No. 1 herein.
7. In view of the above, the captioned petition stands allowed.
The impugned FIR being CR No. I-218 of 2014 lodged before the
Sector 7 Gandhinagar Police Station for offenses punishable
under Section 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section
120B of the IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom qua the present petitioner no.2 only, stands quashed
and set aside.
8. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
MMP
Page 9 of 9
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 18:32:02 IST 2026