BANSIBHAI VALLABHBHAI LUNGARIYA vs STATE OF GUJARAT

R/CR.MA/15019/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 15019 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
BANSIBHAI VALLABHBHAI LUNGARIYA & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MAULIK R SHAH(6385) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR JAY MEHTA, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER

Date : 13/07/2026

JUDGMENT
1. By way of filing the present application under Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,
the applicants-accused have prayed to quash and set
aside the FIR being No. 11199038260487 of 2026
registered with Nabipur Police Station, District
Bharuch for the offences punishable under Sections
409, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian
Penal Code as well as all consequential proceedings
arising therefrom qua the applicants herein.
Page 1 of 10
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Sat Jul 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 14:07:44 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/15019/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
2. As per the allegations made in the impugned FIR, the
present applicants floated a scheme under which the
complainant booked Plot Nos. F-101 and F-102 in his
own name and Plot No. F1-44 in the name of his wife,
Gitaben. Towards the earnest money, the
complainant paid a total sum of Rs.15,65,000/- in
different instalments. It is alleged that, upon offering
to pay the balance consideration of Rs.6,60,860/- and
requesting the applicants to execute the sale deed,
the complainant was informed that a six-lane road
was likely to pass through the area and that some
portion of the land might be affected. It was
represented that, after preparation of a revised
layout plan, the sale deed would be executed. It is
further alleged that, till the year 2021, the applicants
continued to give evasive replies. Thereafter, on
17.06.2022, the complainant's wife expired.
Subsequently, the complainant came to know that
the land on which the scheme had been floated was
not owned by the present applicants. When the
complainant again approached the applicants, they
assured him that the plots would be transferred in
their names and the sale deed would thereafter be
executed. However, despite such assurance, no
fruitful response was forthcoming. It is further alleged
that the complainant thereafter learnt that, apart
from him, about 14 other persons had also invested
Page 2 of 10
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Sat Jul 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 14:07:44 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/15019/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
money in the said scheme and that, upon demand for
execution of the sale deeds or refund of the amounts
paid, the applicants absconded from the place and
stopped all communication with the complainant. On
the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the impugned
FIR came to be registered, which is the subject
matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard the learned advocate Mr. Maulik R. Shah for
the applicants and the learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt
for the respondent-State.
4. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Shah that the
impugned FIR has been lodged after an inordinate
delay of about ten years. It is submitted that, as per
the allegations made in the complaint, the Banakhat
was executed on 27.07.2016; however, till
20.06.2026, the complainant had not approached
any authority with any grievance. It is further
submitted that a bare reading of the impugned FIR
does not satisfy the essential ingredients of the
offence of forgery. Learned advocate Mr. Shah
submitted that, even if the allegations made in the
complaint are accepted at their face value, the
complainant was not the owner of the land on which
the scheme was floated. Learned advocate Mr. Shah
has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in
Bhikhubhai Govindbhai Patel v. State of
Gujarat , reported in 2026 (0) AIJEL-SC-77156 , and
Page 3 of 10
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Sat Jul 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 14:07:44 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/15019/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
submitted that the acts attributed to the present
applicants do not fall within the ambit of the offence
of forgery. In the aforesaid circumstances,
continuation of the criminal proceedings against the
present applicants would amount to an abuse of the
process of law. It is further submitted that, though
the names of 14 other victims surfaced during the
course of investigation, none of them has lodged any
complaint or FIR against the present applicants. In
the aforesaid background, it is submitted that the
impugned FIR deserves to be quashed and the
present application deserves to be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt submitted
that not only the complainant, but as many as 14
other persons, who had invested their hard-earned
money in the scheme floated by the present
applicants, were also duped. It is submitted that all
such persons approached the Investigating Officer
and their statements have been recorded during the
course of investigation. Learned APP Ms. Bhatt
further submitted that, although the impugned FIR
came to be registered on 20.06.2026, the present
applicants are not available for investigation. In the
aforesaid circumstances, particularly when the
investigation is still in progress, no interference is
warranted by this Court in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction.
Page 4 of 10
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Sat Jul 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 14:07:44 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/15019/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
6. This Court has carefully considered the allegations
made in the impugned FIR as well as the submissions
advanced by the learned advocates for the
respective parties. It emerges from the record that
the complainant had booked three plots under the
scheme floated by the present applicants and had
paid a total amount of Rs.15,65,000/- in different
instalments. It is further alleged that, upon offering to
pay the balance consideration of Rs.6,60,860/- and
calling upon the applicants to execute the sale deed,
the applicants continued to give evasive replies till
the year 2021. It further emerges that, after the
demise of the complainant's wife, the complainant
came to know that about 14 other persons, who had
also booked plots under the very same scheme
floated by the present applicants, had allegedly been
duped. Prima facie, the material on record indicates
that, though the plots were not owned by the present
applicants, they collected substantial amounts from
the complainant and other investors under the guise
of executing sale deeds.
7. It is not in dispute that the investigation is presently
at a crucial stage. The present applicants have
neither been arrested nor have they cooperated with
the investigation. It has been reported that they are
not traceable at their residential addresses and that
the Bank Accounts operated by them have also been
Page 5 of 10
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Sat Jul 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 14:07:44 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/15019/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
closed. Ordinarily, if the dispute were confined
merely to non-execution of the sale deeds, the same
could be said to be civil in nature. However, prima
facie, the material on record indicates that the
present applicants did not have title or ownership
over the land in question and, despite the same,
executed Banakhats and accepted substantial
amounts from the complainant and other purchasers
under the guise of executing sale deeds. Such
allegations cannot, at this stage, be treated as giving
rise to a mere civil dispute. It further emerges from
the investigation that, apart from the complainant,
there are 14 other victims who had also paid money
to the present applicants for booking plots under the
said scheme. The details of such victims are
reproduced hereinbelow:
અ . નુ . પ્લોટ ધારકનુ નામ પ્લોટ નંબર ચેક થી તથા
રોકડા આપેલ
રુપીયા
1. અલ્કેશભાઇ ભાનુપ્રસાદ
જાતે દવે ઉ . વ . ૬૮ ધંધો .-
નિવૃત ( પંજાબ નેશનલ
બેન્કમા ) રહે , એસ ૪ - ૫
સરદાર એપાર્ટમેન્ટ ,
ચાપાનેર સ્ટ્રીટ , ખડકી
ફળિયુ , ભરૂચ
તા . જી . ભરૂચ
એફ / ૧ - ૦૧ જે
૭૪ . ૩૪ ચો . મી
૮૦૦ ચો . તથા
ફુટ
એફ / ૧ - ૦૨ જે
૧૪૩ . ૫૪ ચો . મી
૧૫૪૪ . ૫૯ ચો
રૂ .10,10,000/-
2. ગીતાબેન Wd/o
અલ્કેશભાઇ ભાનુપ્રસાદ
જાતે દવે ઉ . વ . ૬૮ .-
ધંધો
લીધેલ પ્લોટ
. એફ / ૧ - ૪૪ જે
નં
૧૯૫ . ૮૬ ચો . મી
રૂ .5,55,000/-
Page 6 of 10
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Sat Jul 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 14:07:44 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/15019/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
| નિવૃત ( નેશનલ
પંજાબ
બેન્કમા ) રહે , એસ ૪ - ૫
સરદાર એપાર્ટમેન્ટ ,
ચાપાનેર સ્ટ્રીટ , ખડકી
ફળિયુ , ભરૂચ
તા . જી . ભરૂચ
૨૧૦૭ . ૧૫
3.
રીટાબેન W/O
ચન્દ્રકાંત મોહનલાલ
મહેતા ઉ . વ . ૫૭ ધંધો -
ઘરકામ રહે ,- મકાન નં .
એ - ૧ અમિધારા
ટાઉનશીપ નંદેલાવ રોડ
તા . જી . ભરૂચ
એફ / ૧ - ૨૩ જે
૭૪ . ૩૪ ચો . મી
૮૦૦ ચો . ની
ફુટ
તથા એફ / ૧ - ૨૪
જે ૮૭ . ૭૩ ચો . મી
૯૪૪ ચો . ની
ફુટ
તથા એફ / ૧ - ૩ જે
૯૧ . ૪૯ ચો . મી
૯૮૪ . ૫૧ ચો .
ફુટ
તથા એફ / ૧ - ૪ જે
૭૮ . ૪૩ ચો . મી
૮૪૩ . ૯૭ ચો .
ફુટ
રૂ . 4,60,000/-
4. હંસાબેન WD/O
હસમુખલાલ ચીમનલાલ
મોદી ઉ . વ ૬૨ ધંધો -
ઘરકામ રહે , મ . નં ડી - ૨ ,
શાલીમાર પાર્ક
સોસાયટી , ભડકોદરા - ૯ ,
તા . અંકલેશ્વર ,
જી . ભરૂચ
એફ / ૧ - ૭૭ જે
૭૪ . ૩૪ ચો . મી
૮૦૦ ચો . ની
ફુટ
તથા એફ / ૧ - ૭૮
જે ૭૪ . ૩૪ ચો . મી
૮૦૦ ચો . ની
ફુટ
તથા એફ / ૧ - ૭૯
જે ૭૪ . ૩૪ ચો . મી
૮૦૦ ચો .
ફુટ
રૂ 11,97,500/-
5. શૈલેષપુરી કંચનપુરી
ગોસ્વામી ઉ . વ . પર ધંધો -
વેપાર રહે , મકાન નં . ૪ ,
આઠમનુ મંદિર
ફળિયુ , જોલવા ગામ
તા . વાગરા જી . ભરૂચ
એફ / ૧ - ૨૫ જે
૭૪ . ૭ ચો . મી ૮૦૦
ચો . ની તથા
ફુટ
એફ / ૧ - ૨૬ ૬જે
૭૪ . ૭૩ ચો . મી
૮૦૦ ચો .
ફુટ
રૂ 6,52,000/-
6. મુકેશભાઇ ગોપાલભાઇ
શાહઉ . વ .
૬૭ધંધોનિવૃત
રહે , મકાન એ -
નં
૪૩ , સુર્યપુરી
સોસાયટી , રૂષભ ટાવર
સામે , રાંદેર રોડ , સુરત
એફ / ૨ - ૧ જે
૯૨ . ૯૩ ચો . મી
૧૦૦૦ચો .
ફુટ
રૂ 2,67,499/-
Page 7 of 10
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Sat Jul 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 14:07:44 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/15019/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
તા . જી . સુરત
7.
શર્મિઠાબેન Wd/O
રાજેન્દ્રભાઇ મધુસુદન
શાહ ઉ . વ . ૬૭ ધંધો -
રીટાયર્ડ ( પંજાબ
નેશનલબેકમાં ) રહે . બી -
૩૦ , યોગેશ્વર નગર ,
લીંક રોડ , ભરૂચ
તા . જી . ભરૂચ
એફ / ૧ -
૪૫ , એફ / ૧ -
૪૬ , એફ / ૧ -
૪૭ , એફ / ૧ -
૪૮ , એફ / ૧ - ૪૯
રૂ 11,00,000/-
દરેક પ્લોટ ૮૦૦
ચો .
ફુટ
8. કૈલાશબેન Wd/O
ઉમેશભાઇ રણછોડદાસ
એફ / ૨ - ૪૮ જે
૧૯૪૦ . ૬૭ચો .
ફુટ
નીતથાએફ / ૨ -
રૂ 6,80,000/-
સિ ધ્ધીવાલા ઉ . વ . ૫૮
ધંધો - ઘરકામ
રહે . લાલભાઇનીપાટ , |
૪૯જે૧૯૨૫ . ૮૦
ચો .
ફુટ
લલુભાઇ ચકલા
તા . જી . ભરૂચ
9. ગીતાબેન W/O
ઘનશ્યામભાઇ
એફ / ૨ - ૧૯ જે
૧૦૦૦ ચો .
ફુટ
તથા એફ / ૨ - ૨૦
જે૧૦૦૦ચો .
ફુટ
રૂ 12,78,500/-
તુલજારામ મહેશ્વરી
ઉ . વ . ૬૧ ધંધો - ઘરકામ
રહે . ડી , ૭૪ઇશાનવ્રજ ,
તથા એફ / ૨ - ૨૧
જે૧૦૦૦ચો .
ફુટ
વ્રજધામ રોડ , સીમા
હોલ પાસે , જોધપુર
ગામ , અમદાવાદ
તથા એફ / ૨ - ૨૨
જે૧૦૦૦ચો .
ફુટ
તથા એફ / ૨ - ૨૩
જે૧૦૦૦ચો .
ફુટ
10. અર્પીતાબેન D/O
જયેશભાઇ ઠાકોરલાલ
મહેતા તે આકાશભાઇ
એફ / ૨ - ૮૯ જે
૧૫૬ . ૬ર ચો . મી
૧૬૮૫ . ૩ ચો .
ફુટ
તથાએફ / ૨ - ૯૦
રૂ 1,65,000/-
અનિલભાઇ જોષીની
પત્ની ઉ . વ ૩૩ -
ધંધો
ઘરકામહાલરહે , એ - ૬૯
જે૨૦૮ . ૦૪ચો . મી
૨૨૩૮ . ૫૮ચો .
ફુટ
યોગીરાજ ટાઉનશીપ ,
નજીક નારયાણ
વિધ્યાલગુરૂકુલસર્કલ
વાધોડીયા રોડ વડોદરા
તા . જીવડોદરામુળરહે ,
મકાન સી / ૭૧૯ ,
નંબર
ચાંપાનેરની ખડકી ,
Page 8 of 10
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Sat Jul 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 14:07:44 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/15019/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
કાળાપાટની
આંબલીની
પાસે , ભરૂચ તા . જી
ભરૂચ
11.
દર્શીલકુમાર રમેશભાઇ
જાતે પટેલ ઉ . વ . ૩૮
ધંધો - TVS ટાયરના
સર્વીસ સેન્ટરમાં રહે ,
મકાન નં . ૧૦૦૮ ,
પદાપોઇની ચાલ ,
લલ્લુભાઇ ચકલા ,
તા . જી . ભરુચ
એફ / ૨ - ૪૫ જે
૯૨ . ૯૩ ચો . મી |
૧૦૦૦ચો .
ફુટ
રૂ 3,30,826/-
12. સુમનદેવી W/o
થરમલભાઇ જાતે જૈન
આ . ઉ . વ . ૬૨ ધંધો -
ઘરકામ રહે , મકાન
નં . ૧૪૭ , પ્રિતમનગર
સોસાયટી - ૦૧ , ભરુચ ,
તા . જી . ભરુચ
એફ / ૧ - ૯૧ જે
૭૪ . ૩૪ ચો . મી |
૮૦૦ચો .
ફુટતથા
એફ / ૧ - ૯૨ જે
૭૪ . ૩૪ ચો . મી
૮૦૦ચો .
ફુટતથા
એફ / ૧ - ૯૩ જે
૭૪ . ૩૪ ચો . મી
૮૦૦ચો .
ફુટતથા
એફ / ૧ - ૯૪ જે
૧૭૭ . ૦૬ ચો . મી
૧૯૦૫ . ૧૯ચો .
ફુટ
રૂ 19,50,000/-
13. સંજયદાન પરબતસંગ
ટાપરીયા ઉ . વ . ૪૦
ધંધો . નોકરી રહેવાસી .
સી /93 મહર્ષિ વીલા
સોસાયટીઓસારારોડ
એફ / ૨ - ૪૦ અને
એફ / ર૪૧જેબંને
પ્લોટ . ૯૨ . ૯૩
ચો . મી . તથા

૧૦૦૦ચોરસફૂટ
રૂ 8,46,000/-
હલદરવા ગામ
તા . જિ . ભરૂચ
14. દિગ્વીજય મહાવીરદાન
ટાપરીયાઉ . વ . .
૩૮ધંધો
નોકરી હાલ રહેવાસી .
બી / ૧૦બી - ૭૦૨પીપલોદ
પોલીસલાઇનપાસપોર્ટ
વતી પ્લોટ .
નં
એફ / ૨ - ૭૮ જે
૧૦૦૦ ચો .
ફુટનો
તથાતેનાથીમોટો
રૂ 10,80,000/-
. એફ / ૨ -
પ્લોટનં
૭૯જે૧૨૭૭ . ૯૬
ચો .
ફુટ
કચેરીસામેસુરતમૂળ
રહેવાસી . ચાડધ્રાગામ
તા . હળવદજિ . મોરબી
Page 9 of 10
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Sat Jul 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 14:07:44 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/15019/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
8. It is an undisputed proposition of law that the powers
vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure are of wide and
amplitude, however, such powers are required to be
exercised with great caution and circumspection. The
Court must ensure that the inherent jurisdiction is
exercised on sound judicial principles and not in a
manner so as to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The
extraordinary jurisdiction is intended to prevent
miscarriage of justice and to secure the ends of
justice. However, in the facts of the present case, the
allegations made in the impugned FIR prima facie
disclose the commission of cognizable offences
against the present applicant. In such circumstances,
particularly when the investigation is at a crucial
stage, this Court does not deem it fit to interfere.
8.Resultantly, the present application stands
dismissed, being devoid of merits.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
M.M.MIRZA
Page 10 of 10
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Sat Jul 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 14:07:44 IST 2026