Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/4137/2002 2/ 2 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 4137 of 2002
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
PRAVINBHAI
NARENDRABHAI PATEL & 1 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MC SHAH for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.
MR JK SHAH, APP for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
KARTIK V PANDYA for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 20/10/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
Petitioners
are the original accused. They seek quashing of complaint at
Annexure A bearing C.R.No.I-40/2002 registered at Bavlu Police
Station. Complainant in the impugned complaint alleged that he had
inherited 2 vighas of land and the other 2 vighas out of 4 vighas of
ancestral property belonged to his brother’s wife Kashiben. The
petitioners desired to purchase 2 vighas out of Survey No.393/2 from
Kashiben and promised that in turn she would be given another 4
vighas of land in exchange and also Rs.40,000/-. Accordingly, they
had got the documents signed. However, when Kashiben and the
complainant reminded the petitioners about the promises, they paid
only Rs.40,000/- and did not give 4 vighas of land. That is how, it
is alleged that the petitioners committed offence under the Indian
Penal Code.
Upon
perusal of the documents on record, however, it is clear that the
land in question was sold through a registered sale deed. The
allegations made in the complaint run counter to the documents on
record. The allegations are inherently improbable. Therefore, no
useful purpose would be served in permitting further investigation
and trial. The complaint at Annexure A is therefore quashed. Rule
is made absolute accordingly.
(Akil
Kureshi, J.)
(vjn)
Top