AMIT @ HAMIDBHAI RAHIM RANA (PETITION ABATED) vs STATE OF GUJARAT

R/CR.MA/20789/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240508552015)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 20789 of 2015

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
AMIT @ HAMIDBHAI RAHIM RANA (PETITION ABATED) & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
ABATED for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,5
MR JIGAR P RAVAL(2008) for the Applicant(s) No. 4
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

Date : 30/10/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present application filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the applicants seek quashing
and setting aside of the First Information Report (FIR) bearing I-
C.R. No. 153 of 2015, dated 06.10.2015, registered with Karjan
Police Station, District Vadodara, for alleged offences punishable
under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34, and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
2. Translated version of the FIR, in verbatim, is as follows:
Page 1 of 16
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 15:41:38 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/20789/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240508552015)
“Date: 06.10.2015
My name is Jaysukhbhai Mohanbhai Patel, Age: 45, Occupation:
Agriculture, Resident of: 100-101, Dhanraj Nagar Society, Behind
Gajera School, Katar Village, Surat, Mobile No.: 9226642888.
Upon being asked in person, I hereby state the facts of my
complaint as follows:
I live with my family and work as a land broker in Surat, Kamrej,
near Navagam, and nearby areas. I, along with my partner
Kishorbhai Dhirubhai Viradiya, resident of Varachha, Surat, carry
out this business. Therefore, for business purposes, we frequently
travel across Surat, Bharuch, and Karjan districts.
During these business trips, we used to meet other land brokers for
tea and snacks, which led to mutual acquaintance. In this manner,
we came to know Akbar Khan N. Pathan and Amit Rana, residents
of Surat, though we did not know their full names initially. For the
past ten years, both I and my partner Kishorbhai have been
engaged in land brokerage.
Around December 2010, Akbar Khan N. Pathan and Amit Rana
told both of us partners: "There is a good, low-priced agricultural
land parcel touching the Surat–Karjan Highway or the main road,
measuring about 26 acres in a single continuous plot (big block
number). If you have a client in Sapa village who wishes to
purchase it, we can discuss further." During discussions with
these two land brokers near Chamunda Hotel, near Old Sub-jail in
Surat, both partners agreed to look at the land. We exchanged
mobile numbers with each other. Akbarbhai provided his mobile
number (9979178694) and Amitbhai Rana provided his mobile
number (9825263777), through which we remained in telephone
contact and decided to go inspect the land.
Accordingly, in December 2010, after telephonic communication,
we decided to visit the land. Land broker Amit Rana (resident of
Surat, originally from Karjan), along with myself and my partner
Kishorbhai, departed from Surat to Karjan–Amod road towards
Page 2 of 16
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 15:41:38 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/20789/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240508552015)
Sapa village. Upon reaching Karjan Miyagam Junction, the other
land broker, Akbar Khan N. Pathan, was already present and
joined us. They took us to Sapa village in Karjan Taluka to show us
the land situated near the main road: Khata No. 264, Block No. 32
owned by Malek Dhanben, wife of Allibhai Mahmedbhai, elder
member of a joint family; Khata No. 361, Block No. 22 owned by
Malek Ayubbhai Allibhai, elder member of a joint family; Khata
No. 361, Block No. 23 owned by Malek Ayubbhai Allibhai; Khata
No. 361, Block No. 31 owned by Malek Ayubbhai Allibhai; Khata
No. 330, Block No. 34 owned by Malek Mehmudbhai Allibhai;
Khata No. 330, Block No. 35 owned by Malek Mehmudbhai
Allibhai; Khata No. 122, Block No. 21 owned by Malek Salimbhai
Allibhai. The farmers/landowners were present at the location and
showed us the land. Since both partners liked the land shown, land
brokers Amit Rana and Akbar Khan Pathan took us to the home of
the owners. They introduced us to each other. Salimbhai Allibhai
Malek and his mother Dhanben, along with Ayubbhai Allibhai
Malek, Mehmudbhai Allibhai Malek, and Salimbhai Allibhai
Malek, introduced themselves and stated that they urgently needed
money. They stated that they were willing to sell this entire big
land parcel measuring approximately 26 acres, but since it is road-
touch land, it must be sold without dividing it. In their presence,
negotiations took place, and the price was fixed at Rs.3,32,786/- per
acre. They willingly accepted this price. Since the total area was
approximately 26 acres across the above block numbers, the total
deal value came to Rs.86,52,436/-. To pay token money (earnest
money) toward the transaction, negotiations concluded between us
and the landowners. The landowners stated that if we were ready
to purchase, we should pay token money on 18.12.2010.
On 18.12.2010, the landowners informed us that the price was
finalized and asked us to visit to pay the token money. Around
10:00 AM, I, along with my partner Kishorbhai and land broker
Amitbhai Rana, traveled from Surat. Akbar Khan Pathan met us
near Karjan Miyagam Junction, and together we went to the house
of the land owners in Sapa village around 11:00 AM. All the
farmers mentioned above were present. The price of the land was
re-confirmed, and as per the agreed amount of Rs.3,32,786/- per
acre for Block Nos. 32, 22, 23, 31, 34, 35, and 21 (totaling
Page 3 of 16
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 15:41:38 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/20789/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240508552015)
approximately 25 acres for Rs.86,52,436/-), both partners brought
Rs.1,00,000/- as token money. When we were ready to pay,
Salimbhai Allibhai showed us a Notarized Power of Attorney dated
11.02.2010 executed on behalf of these farmers. He assured us: "I
hold the Power of Attorney; if you pay the money to me, there will
be no issue. Money given to me is equivalent to money given to
all." Believing his statement, we confirmed that the Power of
Attorney was valid and paid the Rs.1,00,000/- token money to
Salimbhai Allibhai Malek. Receipts of Rs.25,000/- each were issued
on revenue stamps, signed by Salimbhai, and a written Agreement
to Sell (Soda Chithi) was executed and given to us on 18.12.2010.
They asked us to execute a formal Banakhat (Agreement to Sell) on
06.01.2011. They further asked us to bring Rs.20,00,000/- to
Rs.21,00,000/- on that day. On 06.01.2011, when we went for the
Banakhat, Salim came alone. When we asked why the other farmers
hadn't come, Salim said that once the agreement was made, he
would inform all the farmers. However, on 09.01.2011, Salim
brought along all the farmers—Dhanben Allibhai, Ayubbhai
Allibhai Malek, Mehmudbhai Allibhai Malek, and Salimbhai
Allibhai Malek—to the office of our advocate, Mr. Sureshchandra
B. Nanavati, in Surat around 11:00 AM. Out of the agreed total
consideration of Rs.86,52,436/- for 26 acres: Rs.19,63,109/- was
paid in cash. Four cheques of Rs.50,000/- each were given to the
four farmers, totalling Rs.2,00,000/-. Thus, a total of
Rs.21,63,109/- was paid in the presence of our advocate, and
conditions were laid down in the Banakhat. It was agreed that the
remaining installments would be paid in three schedule payments:
Rs.21,63,109/- on 04.05.2011, Rs.21,63,109/- on 04.06.2011, and
Rs.21,63,109/- on 04.07.2011, with the final balance to be paid at
the time of sale deed registration.
Although the term in the Banakhat stipulated payment on
04.05.2011, before that date, Salimbhai Allibhai Malek contacted
us stating he urgently needed money. He telephoned us demanding
Rs.10,00,000/-. We reminded him that as per the terms of the
Banakhat, payment was due on 04.05.2011. Salim then made
excuses, saying his father had mortgaged their house, and if money
was not paid by 22.01.2011, they would lose their house.
Page 4 of 16
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 15:41:38 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/20789/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240508552015)
Seeing his distress, we arranged funds and contacted Salim. On
22.01.2011, after arranging Rs.10,00,000/-, Salim called us. When
we met near Aambeshwar Junction in Bharuch around 1:00 PM,
we paid the money. Ayubbhai Allibhai Malek signed a revenue
stamp receipt acknowledging this payment of Rs.32,63,109/-
(including prior payments).
My partner and I told Salimbhai and Ayubbhai that we now had
sufficient funds and were ready to pay the remaining balance to
execute the registered sale deed. However, they repeatedly delayed
and gave false promises.
When my partner Kishorbhai and I visited the farmers in Sapa
village, they threatened to kill us. Left with no choice, we filed a
civil suit.
On 04.03.2012, through public notices published in daily
newspapers Gujarat Samachar (Vadodara) and Gujarat Mitra
(Surat), we came to learn that despite executing an Agreement to
Sell (Banakhat) with us on 09.01.2011, the landowners and brokers
Amit Rana and Akbar Khan Pathan had executed another Soda
Chithi (Agreement to Sell) on 13.09.2011 in favor of Jadavbhai
Hirjibhai Sabadiya (resident of Surat). Furthermore, on
28.09.2011, they executed yet another Soda Chithi in favor of
Ghanshyambhai and Kanubhai (whose full names are unknown to
us). We obtained copies of these documents.
Despite knowing all facts, land brokers Amit Rana and Akbar
Khan Pathan (residents of Surat) gained our confidence and
entered into a criminal conspiracy. They showed us the road-touch
land in Sapa village:
Block No. 32 (Khata No. 264) owned by Malek Dhanben Allibhai
Mahmedbhai;
Block No. 22 (Khata No. 361) owned by Malek Ayubbhai Allibhai;
Block No. 23 (Khata No. 361) owned by Malek Ayubbhai Allibhai;
Block No. 31 (Khata No. 361) owned by Malek Ayubbhai Allibhai;
Block No. 34 (Khata No. 330) owned by Malek Mehmudbhai
Page 5 of 16
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 15:41:38 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/20789/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240508552015)
Allibhai;
Block No. 35 (Khata No. 330) owned by Malek Mehmudbhai
Allibhai;
Block No. 21 (Khata No. 122) owned by Malek Salimbhai Allibhai.
They assured us that the land had clear titles and that the farmers
urgently needed money to sell the land. The price was set at
Rs.3,32,786/- per acre for approx. 26 acres, totaling
Rs.86,52,436/-.
They received:
Rs.1,00,000/- via Soda Chithi on 18.12.2010; Rs.21,63,109/-
toward Banakhat consideration on 09.01.2011; Rs.10,00,000/- on
22.01.2011 under the pretext of retrieving a mortgaged house.
Thus, they dishonestly induced and extracted a total sum of
Rs.32,63,109/- from us. Instead of executing the registered sale
deed, they threatened to kill us when we demanded completion of
the transaction.
When we published a notice in the newspaper on 04.03.2012, we
discovered that despite executing a Banakhat with us on
09.01.2011, they executed another document (Soda Chithi) on
13.09.2011 with Jadavbhai Hirjibhai Sabadiya of Surat, and
another document on 28.09.2011 with Ghanshyambhai and
Kanubhai. By colluding with each other and creating
fraudulent/fake documents, they cheated us out of Rs.32,63,109/-
and used the funds for their personal gains.
Regarding this fraud, I submitted a written application addressed
to the District Superintendent of Police (DSP), Vadodara Rural,
on 03.08.2012. Pursuant to letter/application reference No.
અરજ / ૨૪૩૩ / ૧૨ / ૮૭૪ / ૧૬૬૯૯ / ૧૫ from the Office of the Police
Inspector, Vadodara Rural, and based on the order dated 15-
16.09.2015, I was called today to lodge this formal complaint.
I am filing this complaint for legal action and investigation
regarding the incident that occurred between 18.12.2010 and
Page 6 of 16
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 15:41:38 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/20789/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240508552015)
22.01.2011.
The above facts of my complaint have been dictated by me, read
over to me, and are true and correct.”
3. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE :
3.1 Brief facts as emerging from the impugned FIR and the
present Memo of Application are summarized below:
3.1.1 The Complainant (Respondent No. 2), a land broker
operating in Surat and surrounding areas, alleged that in
December 2010, through intermediary land brokers (Akbar
Khan Pathan and Amit Rana), he negotiated to purchase
agricultural land admeasuring approximately 26 acres across
various Block numbers in Village Sapa, Taluka Karjan,
District Vadodara, belonging to the applicants.
3.1.2 As per the FIR, an unregistered Agreement to Sell
( Soda Chithi ) was executed on 18.12.2010 upon payment of
Rs.1,00,000/- as token money. Subsequently, a formal
Banakhat was executed on 09.01.2011, wherein further part-
consideration was paid. The Complainant asserts that the
total agreed price was Rs.3,32,786/- per acre and that he paid
a total consideration of Rs.32,63,109/- across various dates.
3.1.3 The Complainant alleges that despite receiving part-
payment, the applicants failed to execute the final registered
sale deed, threatened the Complainant when performance
Page 7 of 16
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 15:41:38 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/20789/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240508552015)
was demanded, and allegedly executed subsequent
agreements/notices ( Soda Chithi ) with third parties in June
2011. On these allegations, the FIR was registered on
06.10.2015.
3.2 Except for the applicant No. 4, other applicants have expired
pending this application and hence, this application qua them has
already been abated. Accordingly, this application is decided qua
applicant No. 4 only.
4. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT :
4.1 Learned Advocate Mr. Jigar P. Raval for the applicant
vehemently submitted as under:
4.1.1 The dispute between the parties is purely civil and
contractual in nature. The core dispute pertains to a
disagreement over the unit of land measurement and
calculation of rate—specifically, whether the agreed price
was Rs.3,32,786/- per acre (as claimed by the Complainant)
or Rs.3,32,786/- per bigha (as understood by the illiterate
villager-applicants).
4.1.2 A full-fledged Civil Suit bearing Special Civil Suit No.
128 of 2012 filed by the Complainant for specific
performance of the Agreement to Sell is already pending
before the Learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara,
since 14.02.2012. The applicants have filed their Written
Page 8 of 16
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 15:41:38 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/20789/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240508552015)
Statement (Exh. 12) on 09.09.2012, categorically admitting the
Agreement to Sell and receipt of consideration to the extent
of Rs.9,00,000/- received in cash.
4.1.3 The present FIR was registered on 06.10.2015, after a
delay of nearly three years from the date of filing of the Civil
Suit (and over four years from the transaction date), without
any plausible explanation. The criminal process has been
weaponized as an after-thought to exert pressure and settle
civil disputes.
4.1.4 Out of the initial consideration, four cheques of
Rs.50,000/- each issued by the Complainant were
dishonoured/bounced upon presentation, demonstrating
default on the part of the Complainant himself.
4.1.5 Taking the FIR at face value, none of the statutory
ingredients of Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, or 120-B of the
IPC are made out against the applicants.
5. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:
5.1 Though Advocate Notice is served, none appears for
respondent No. 3 - original complainant.
5.2 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Rohan Shah for
the State would submit that the allegations in the FIR prima facie
disclose cognizable offences. He contended that entering into
Page 9 of 16
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 15:41:38 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/20789/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240508552015)
subsequent agreements with third parties after accepting partial
consideration constitutes dishonest intention from the inception,
justifying criminal prosecution alongside civil proceedings. That
the dispute of price qua the land whether per acre or per bigha is
not genuine is as much as the said aspect is very clear from the
recitals of the Agreement to Sell and thus said dispute is a
camouflage to hide the dishonest intention of the applicants right
from the inception of the transaction and thus, has argued to reject
the present application.
6. FINDINGS AND REASONING :
6.1 Heard, the learned advocates for the respective parties at
length and carefully perused the materials on record, including the
FIR and the Memo of Application.
6.2 The pivotal issue for consideration before this Court is
whether the continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings
against the applicant constitutes an abuse of the process of law,
and whether the alleged IPC sections are attracted on the face of
the record.
6.2.1 Pure Civil Dispute Cloaked in Criminal Colour :
6.2.2 It is a well-settled principle of law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corpn. v.
NEPC India Ltd., reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 , that where a
dispute is essentially civil in nature arising out of a breach of
Page 10 of 16
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 15:41:38 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/20789/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240508552015)
contract, converting it into a criminal prosecution is an abuse
of process. In Indian Oil Corpn. (supra) , the Apex Court
observed thus:
"While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a
growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil
disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on the
account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are
time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests
of lenders/creditors... Any effort to settle civil disputes and
claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by
applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be
deprecated and discouraged."
6.2.3 In the instant case, the transaction emanates from an
unregistered Agreement to Sell ( Banakhat ) dated 06.01.2011.
The dispute primarily centres around the agreed land rate,
whether per acre or per bigha . This issue is directly under
adjudication in Special Civil Suit No. 128 of 2012 before the
competent Civil Court at Vadodara. The filing of the FIR in
2015, after an unaccounted delay of 3 years following the
institution of the Civil Suit, clearly demonstrates an
afterthought aimed at pressurizing the applicants.
6.3 Non-Attraction of Alleged IPC Sections :
6.3.1 A detailed evaluation of the legal ingredients of the
offences alleged in the FIR reveals that none of them are
satisfied:
Page 11 of 16
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 15:41:38 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/20789/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240508552015)
a) Section 420 IPC (Cheating and Dishonestly Inducing
Delivery of Property)
i) Settled Law : To attract Section 420 IPC, there
must be a fraudulent or dishonest intention existing at
the inception of the transaction ( ab initio ). Mere breach
of contract or failure to execute a final Sale Deed at a
later stage does not constitute cheating (Ref: Hriday
Kumar Das v. State of W.B. reported in (2000) 4 SCC
168; Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar reported
in (2005) 10 SCC 336) .
ii) Application to Present Case : The applicants
entered into a written agreement, accepted part
consideration, and in their Written Statement before
the Civil Court categorically admitted the execution of
the agreement as well as receipt of money. This bona
fide admission completely negatives any fraudulent
intent existing ab initio . A bona fide civil dispute over
terms/rates cannot be elevated to the offence of
cheating.
b) Section 406 IPC (Criminal Breach of Trust) :
i) Settled Law : For an offence under Section
405/406 IPC, there must be an entrustment of property
with a domain over it, followed by misappropriation
Page 12 of 16
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 15:41:38 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/20789/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240508552015)
or conversion to one's own use ( Ref: Velji Raghavji
Patel v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1965 SC
1433 : “Upon the plain reading of S. 405, I.P.C. it is obvious
that before a person can be said to have committed criminal
breach of trust it must be established that he was either
entrusted with or entrusted with dominion over property
which he is said to have converted to his own use or disposed
of in violation of any direction of law etc. Every partner has
dominion over property by reason of the fact that he is a
partner. This is a kind of dominion which every owner of
property has over his property. But it is not dominion of this
kind which satisfies the requirements of S. 405. In order to
establish "entrustment of dominion" over property to an
accused person the mere existence of that person's dominion
over property is not enough. It must be further shown that
his dominion was the result of entrustment.”)
ii) Application to Present Case : Money paid by a
buyer to a seller as advance/part-consideration under
a contract for sale of land is paid towards the purchase
price; it does not constitute "entrusted property" held
in trust by the seller. Hence, failure to convey title or
complete performance under a sale contract does not
amount to Criminal Breach of Trust. The Apex Court in
the case of Radheyshyam and Ors., v. State of
Rajasthan and Anrs., reported in 2024 Supreme (SC)
Page 13 of 16
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 15:41:38 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/20789/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240508552015)
681, held as follows:
“12. In the present case, the appellants were not entrusted
with any property by respondent no.2 – complainant. The
only delivery made was of part payment towards an
Agreement to Sell between the parties. The amount paid
towards consideration cannot be said to have been entrusted
with the appellants by respondent no. 2. Additionally,
merely because the appellants are refusing to register the
sale, it does not amount to misappropriation of the advance
payment. Since there was no entrustment of property, the
offence of misappropriation of such property and thereby
criminal breach of trust cannot be said to be made out.”
iii) In view of the settled principles when applied to
the facts on hand, amount paid towards part
consideration cannot be said to have been entrusted
any property with the applicants hence, no case of
offence punishable under Section 405/406 IPC is made
out.
c) Sections 467, 468, and 471 IPC (Forgery, Forgery for
Cheating, and Using Forged Document as Genuine) :
i) Settled Law : To establish forgery under Section
463/464 IPC, a document must be a "false document"—
meaning it must be executed with the intent to cause it
to be believed that such document was made by or
under the authority of a person by whom it was not
made ( Ref: Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar
reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 ).
Page 14 of 16
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 15:41:38 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/20789/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240508552015)
ii) Application to Present Case : The FIR contains no
allegation that the applicants forged signatures,
fabricated official seals, or impersonated anyone to
create a fake title deed. Execution of subsequent Soda
Chithis or agreements with third parties—even if true
—does not constitute "forgery" within the meaning of
Section 464 IPC, as the applicants executed those
documents under their own names and authority as
title holders. Therefore, execution of such document
(Agreement to Sell/Soda Chithis) is not execution of a
false document as defined under Section 464 of the
IPC. If what is executed is not a false document, there
is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither section
467, 468 nor section 471 of the IPC are attracted.
d) Sections 120B, 34, and 114 IPC (Criminal Conspiracy
and Common Intention) :
i) Settled Law : Sections 120B, 34, and 114 are
vicarious or constructive liability provisions. They can
only survive if the principal substantive offences
(Sections 420, 406, 467, etc.) are established.
ii) Application to Present Case : Since the primary
substantive offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468,
and 471 are not made out on facts or law, the
provisions of common intention and criminal
conspiracy automatically fall to the ground.
Page 15 of 16
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 15:41:38 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/20789/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240508552015)
7. SUMMING UP :
7.1 In view of the above settled legal position and the
undisputed factual matrix, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the impugned FIR is an unmitigated abuse of the process of
law, filed to give a criminal colour to a commercial/civil dispute
currently sub-judice before the competent Civil Court. Permitting
the investigation or prosecution to continue under these
circumstances would result in a grave miscarriage of justice.
8. CONCLUSION :
8.1 Consequently, the application is allowed. The First
Information Report bearing I-C.R. No. 153 of 2015 dated
06.10.2015, registered with Karjan Police Station, District
Vadodara, along with all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, is hereby quashed and set aside qua the present
applicant.
8.2 It is clarified that the Civil Court deciding Special Civil Suit
No. 128 of 2012 shall decide the matter independently on its own
merits, uninfluenced by any observations made in this judgment.
8.3 Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service permitted.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
NITIN MAKWANA
Page 16 of 16
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 15:41:38 IST 2026