Judgment M.R. Shah, J.—Rule. Mr. KP Raval, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of the the State - Respondent No. 1 and Mr. V.M. Pancholi, learned Advocate waive the service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent named Mr. J.M. Chaudhary and Mr. NS Sheth, Learned Advocate, waive the service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent named Mr. DJ Bharvad, in both the petitions. 1.00. Criminal Misc. Application No. 13045 of 2006 has been preferred by the petitioner – Vijay Hathising Shah - original accused No. 1, under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash and set aside further proceedings of the M.Case No. 2 of 2006 registered against him with the CID (Crime), Gandhinagar Zone Police Station. It is further prayed to quash and set aside Criminal Case No. 226 of 2006 filed by the original complainant – Respondent No. 3, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 114, 120B read with Section. 34 of Indian Penal Code. Criminal Misc. Application No. 14831 of 2006 has been preferred by the petitioner - Mukesh Verma – original accused No. 2 for the aforesaid relief and to quash and set aside the aforesaid complaint/Criminal Case. 1.01. A private complaint being Criminal Case No. 226 of 206 has been field by the original complainant - Respondent No. 3 against the petitioners - original accused for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 114, 120B read with Section. 34 of Indian Penal Code, alleging inter-alia that the accused No. 1, in collusion with the accused No. 1 – petitioner of Criminal Misc. Application No. 13045 of 2006 and accused No. 2 – petitioner of Criminal Misc. Application No. 14831 of 2006, concocted the signature and got executed a Will dated 6/11/1989 of one Shambhubhai Becharbhai Patel (erstwhile owner of two parcels of land bearing Old Survey No. 356 and 1162 Paiki, admeasuring 4879 sq.mtrs. situated at Vejalpur, Ahmedabad), by forging the signatures of three witnesses to the Will, two of whom (Vadibhai Shambhubhai Patel and Ranchhodbhai Shambhubhai Patel) are the sons of testator Shambhubhai Becharbhai Patel. situated at Vejalpur, Ahmedabad), by forging the signatures of three witnesses to the Will, two of whom (Vadibhai Shambhubhai Patel and Ranchhodbhai Shambhubhai Patel) are the sons of testator Shambhubhai Becharbhai Patel. It appears and it is the case on behalf of the complainant that the aforesaid two sons of the original land owner Shambhubhai Patel i.e. Vadibhai Shambhubhai Patel and Ranchhodbhai Shambhubhai Patel executed one Agreement to Sell in favour of the complainant in the year 1997 and that in the year 2005, when the complainant filed the suit against the two sons of the original land owners for specific performance of the said Agreement to Sell, from the written statement filed by the aforesaid two persons, he came to know about the alleged Will executed by the original owner and on inquiry it was found that the same was got executed by the petitioner – original accused No. 1 by forging signatures of the aforesaid two sons and, therefore, the original complainant has filed the aforesaid private complaint in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural), in the year 2006 against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 114, 120B read with Section. 34 of Indian Penal Code and, thereafter, the said complaint is sent to CID Crime Gandhinagar Zone Police Station for investigation under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure which is numbered as M.Case No. 2 of 2006, hence, the petitioners – original accused have preferred the present Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash and set aside the aforesaid proceedings. 2.00. Before considering the submissions made and contentions raised on behalf of the Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, few facts and chronological list of events, which are necessary for the purpose of determining both these petitions are as under: 2.01. One Shambhubhai Becharbhai Patel was the owner of the two parcels of land bearing Survey Nos. 1162 and 356 Paiki and he executed the Will dated 6/11/89, which according to the original accused No. 1 was executed in presence of his sons Vadibhai Shambhubhai Patel and Ranchhodbhai Shambhubhai Patel and both of them attested the said Will as witnesses. One Shambhubhai Becharbhai Patel was the owner of the two parcels of land bearing Survey Nos. 1162 and 356 Paiki and he executed the Will dated 6/11/89, which according to the original accused No. 1 was executed in presence of his sons Vadibhai Shambhubhai Patel and Ranchhodbhai Shambhubhai Patel and both of them attested the said Will as witnesses. Under the said Will, the original accused No. 1 was authorised to execute sale deed in favour of Utter Pradesh Co-operative Housing Society Limited for conveyance of the aforesaid two parcels of land. The testator Shambhubhai Patel died on 13/11/1989. That on 18/11/1989, one affidavit was sworn by the aforesaid two sons of the testator solemnly declaring on oath on 6/11/1989 that the testator Shambhubahi Becharbhai Patel had shown his Will to them and they had attested and put their signatures to the Will in the presence of the testator. It appears that on the very day on 18/11/1989 a Declaration made by the aforesaid two sons of the testator to the effect that they have no right, title or interest in the aforesaid two parcels of land and that they are aware of the Will executed by their father - Shambhubhai Becharbhai Patel and that they consent to the said Will. That Revenue entry No. 5960 was made in Village Form No. 6 in respect of the aforesaid two parcels of land. The said entry was with respect to the Will executed by Shambhubhai Becharbhai Patel and the said entry was dated 6/11/1989 and in the said entry original accused No. 1 – Vijay Hathising Shah was named as executor of the Will. It appears that a declaration was also made by the said two sons of the testator before the Talati-cum-Mantri on 1/1/1990 with regard to the aforesaid two parcels of land, to the effect that the male heirs have no right, title or interest in the aforesaid two parcels of land; that they have consented to the Will executed by their father and that they have no objection to the nomination of the original accused No. 1 as Executor of the Will. That two sale deeds came to be executed on 6/1/1990 by the original accused No. 1 as executor of the Will in favour of one Utter Pradesh Co-operative Housing Society Limited wherein the sons of the testator stood as confirming party,that too for conveyance of the aforesaid two parcels of land. That Revenue entry No. 5960 came to be certified by the Talati-cum-Mantri on 12/1/1990. That RTS Case No. 12/1990 was filed earlier by one Kantaben, daughter of Shambhubhai Becharbhai Patel, challenging the certification of Revenue Entry No. 5960, which came to be withdrawn unconditionally by her and that the Mutation Entry was confirmed on 30/1/1990. Again one affidavit was sworn by the sons of the testator on 10/4/1990 affirming that they have no right, title or interest in the aforesaid two parcels of land. In the said affidavit, a specific reference is also made by the male heirs to the Will executed by Shambhubhai Becharbhai Patel on 6/11/1989. It appears that in the year 1998, the aforesaid two sons of the original land owner challenged Mutation Entry No. 5960 before the City Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad, by way of preferring RTS Appeal No. 67/98, which came to be disposed of by the City Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad, vide order dated 21/12/1998, by observing that they have sought to challenge the aforesaid revenue entry after a period of 8 years after consenting to the Will on 6/11/1989. It appears that against the aforesaid order passed by the City Dy. Collector, Ahmedabad in rejecting Revision Application No. 67 of 1999 in rejecting the Revision Application preferred by two sons of the original land owners, they preferred further revision before the District Collector, Ahmedabad, who by order dated 6/9/1999 rejected the said Revision Application, which was filed by the sons of the testator. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the City Dy. Collector as well as Collector, Ahmedabad in aforesaid two proceedings, the two sons of the testator preferred further revision application before the State i.e. Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Gujarat being Revision Application Noi.97 of 1999, which also came to be dismissed by the learned revisional authority by order dated 20/7/2005. That the order passed by the Secretary (Appeals), State of Gujarat in Revision Application No. 97 of 1999 in dismissing the same and confirming the orders passed by the District Collector, Ahmedabad as well as the City Dy. That the order passed by the Secretary (Appeals), State of Gujarat in Revision Application No. 97 of 1999 in dismissing the same and confirming the orders passed by the District Collector, Ahmedabad as well as the City Dy. Collector, Ahmedabad came to be challenged by the sons of the testator before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 24411 of 2005 and the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the said Special Civil Application by observing in its order that the aforesaid two sons had been the signatories to the Will and had consented to the Will executed by their father in respect to the aforesaid two parcels of land in favour of Utter Pradesh Co-operative Housing Society Limited and therefore, the orders passed by the revenue authorities cannot be said to be erroneous. It appears that in the meantime and during the pendency of the aforesaid two proceedings, two sons of the testator filed one Regular one Civil Suit No. 493 of 1999 before the Civil Court for permanent injunction against the alienation of the aforesaid two parcels of the land and in the said suit, an application for interim injunction was filed at Ex.5, which came to be rejected by the learned Civil Judge, Ahmedabad Rural vide order dated 29/9/2001. It appears that even thereafter one Regular Civil Suit No. 467 of 2005 was instituted by the sons of the testator against accused No. 1 and others praying inter-alia to stop the construction on the land. It is to be noted that till then two sons of the testator did not challenge the will and/or execution of the Will at all. In the meantime, one Agreement-to-sell was executed into by the aforesaid two sons of the testator in favour of the complainant on 29/9/1997. It appears that thereafter for the first time in the year 2005, by way of Regular Civil Suit No. 578 of 2005 the aforesaid two sons of the testator challenged the Will dated 6/11/1989. In the meantime, one Agreement-to-sell was executed into by the aforesaid two sons of the testator in favour of the complainant on 29/9/1997. It appears that thereafter for the first time in the year 2005, by way of Regular Civil Suit No. 578 of 2005 the aforesaid two sons of the testator challenged the Will dated 6/11/1989. It is alleged that thereafter after a period of almost 8 years of the execution of the alleged Agreement-to-sell in favour of the complainant executed by the two sons of the testator, the original complainant has instituted one Special Civil Suit No. 56 of 2006 against the sons of the testator, original accused No. 1 and Others, praying iner-alia for specific performance of the registered agreement to sell dated 29/9/1997 and in the said suit, Will dt.6/11/1989 is also challenged. In the said suit being Special Civil Suit No. 56 of 2006 an application was also submitted by the original complainant for interim injunction at Ex.5 which came to be rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 5/4/2007, against which the original complainant preferred Appeal From Order No. 163 of 2007 before this Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 26/9/2008 had dismissed the said Appeal From Order confirming the order passed by the learned trial Court refusing to grant interim injunction in favour of the complainant. In between and after the aforesaid Special Civil Suit 56 of 2006 was filed by the original complainant, the original complainant has filed impugned criminal complaint under Section. 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 114, 120B read with Section. 34 of Indian Penal Code on 6/11/2006 and the learned Magistrate passed an order sending the complaint to the police officer for investigation under Section. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the meantime, as stated hereinabove, sale deeds were executed in favour of Utter Pradesh Co-operative Housing Society Limited, which was subsequently bifurcated into two societies and one Acharya Buddhi Sagar Co-operative Society was also formed in the year 1999 and some portion of the land was sold in favour of the said society, of which the accused No. 2 was the member. The aforesaid happened on 5/4/1999. The aforesaid happened on 5/4/1999. It is also required to be noted at this stage that in between there is a full construction on the aforesaid two parcels of land in question and societies have been formed and so many other persons are residing. 2.02. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid private complaint / criminal proceedings instituted by the Respondent No. 3 – original complainant, the petitioners - original accused Nos. 1 and 2, respectively have preferred both these petitions under Section. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3.00. Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused No. 1 has submitted that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint. It is submitted that the witnesses to the Will dated 6/11/1989 whose signatures are alleged to have been forged have themselves not initiated any criminal proceeding. It is submitted that when these witnesses attested to the Will, the complainant was not in the picture at all and he has entered the scene only on 29/9/1997 when the aforesaid two sons of the testator executed a registered Agreement to Sell in his favour for sale of the aforesaid two parcels of land. It is submitted that there are only two ways of knowing whether forgery has taken place or not namely [i] either by personal knowledge or [ii] by information from third party. It is submitted that the allegations of forgery in the complaint made by the complainant are neither based on personal knowledge nor on information obtained from third parties. Therefore, it is submitted that without a specific source being disclosed, the complainant who is a mere holder of the agreement to sell, has no locus standi to file the complaint. 3.01. Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused No. 1 has submitted that even the complaint is also required to be quashed and set aside on the ground of delay. It is submitted that the complaint is filed exactly 17 years after the execution of the Will. It is submitted that the Will was executed on 6/11/1989 and the complaint is filed on 6/11/2006. It is submitted that the complainant was in the know of things since 29/9/1997 because there is no averment in the complaint that sons of the testator had kept him in the dark upto the date of filing of the complaint. Mr. It is submitted that the Will was executed on 6/11/1989 and the complaint is filed on 6/11/2006. It is submitted that the complainant was in the know of things since 29/9/1997 because there is no averment in the complaint that sons of the testator had kept him in the dark upto the date of filing of the complaint. Mr. Mehta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Singh vs. Gurpal Singh & Others, reported in 2010 (8) Scale 205 more particularly Para 22 of the said decision. It is submitted that as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision, in a case where there is a delay in lodging First Information Report, Court has to look for a plausible explanation for such delay. It is submitted that as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision, in absence of such an explanation may be fatal. It is submitted that in the present case there is no explanation at all for the delay in filing complaint only on 06.11.2006 when the complainant entered the fray on 29.09.1997. It is submitted that thus, in absence of any explanation of delay in lodging the complaint, the impugned complaint deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that lone unexplained delay in filing the complaint also proves that the complainant has invoked jurisdiction of Criminal Court only with a view to harass and persecute the accused. 3.02. Mr. Mehta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that even the complaint is liable to be quashed and set aside as it is replete of misstatements. It is submitted that in the complaint it is stated that [i] the sons of the testator (Vadibhai Shambhubhai Patel and Ranchhodbhai Shambhubhai Patel) are owners of the two parcels of land [ii] the sons of the testator came to know of the Will dated 06.11.1989 only in the year 2005 when the accused filed his written statement in Regular Civil Suit No. 467/05 [iii] the Will is not produced by the petitioner [iv] the entries pertaining to the immovable property found in the revenue records are false. It is submitted that the record of the case discloses that [i] sons were never owners of the land and in fact it was owned by Shambhubhai Becharbhai Patel, who executed Will dated 6/11/1989. That after his death, the land came to be sold to Utter Pradesh Co-operative Housing Society Limited. It is submitted that the record discloses that sons of the testator knew about the will right from the day on which it was executed. It is submitted that even as per the Affidavit dated 23/11/2006 filed by Vadibhai Shambhubhai and Ranchhodbhai Shambhubhai Patel, Will was produced by the original accused No. 2 by his List of Document being Ex.22 in Regular Civil Suit No. 467 of 2005 on 2/8/2005. It is submitted that even as per the complainant affidavit dated 27/11/2006, filed in the present proceedings copy of the Will was produced by the petitioner in Regular Civil Suit No. 467 of 2005. It is submitted that even challenge to the certification of the Mutation Entry No. 5960 at the instance of the sons of the testator has failed upto this High Court, which can be seen from the order passed by this Court dated 26/11/2005 in Special Civil Suit No. 24411 of 2005. It is, therefore, submitted that as the original complainant has made misstatements in the complaint and has not approached this Hon’ble Court with clean hands, the impugned complaint deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3.03. Mr. Mehta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Has further submitted that even there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner accused. It is submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It is submitted that the sons of the testator whose signatures are alleged to have been forged, have not instituted any criminal proceeding against the petitioner. It is submitted that the alleged non-production of the copy of the Will does not make the Will forged or cannot give rise to cause any presumption. It is submitted that considering the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Appeal From Order No. 16317 dated 26/9/2008 and observations made in Para 8, the impugned complaint deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3.04. Mr. It is submitted that considering the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Appeal From Order No. 16317 dated 26/9/2008 and observations made in Para 8, the impugned complaint deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3.04. Mr. Mehta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that the complaint constitutes an abuse of process of law because the complainant and the sons of the testator have entered into a conspiracy to grab the land that now belongs to Utter Pradesh Co-operative Housing Society Limited and is fully constructed upon. It is submitted that Special Civil Suit No. 56/06 is filed by the complainant in which the sons of the testator are impleaded as contesting defendants and in contradiction to this, the sons of the testator are named as the complainant’s witness in the complaint. It is further submitted that the sons of the testator have executed one another registered Agreement to Sell on 27/9/2006 with one Neha Dilipbhai Patel for sale of the land in question that was sought to be sold to the complainant vide registered Agreement to Sale dated 29/9/1997. It is further submitted that right from the year 1989 upto the year 1998, the sons of the testator have never asserted their right in the aforesaid two parcels of the land. It is submitted that, in fact, the various affidavits and declarations executed by them in the year 1990 categorically show that they have no right, title or interest in the immovable property. It is further submitted that they have said so themselves by signing as confirming parties in the registered Sale Deed dated 6/1/1990 by which the land was sold to Utter Pradesh Co-operative Housing Society Limited. Relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajanlal and Others, reported in (1992) Suppl. 1 SCC 335 it is requested to quash and set aside the complaint. 3.05. Mr. Mehta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that the case squarely falls within the Parameters of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhajanlal (Supra), as the complaint is maliciously filed with mala fide intention and ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioner accused. 3.05. Mr. Mehta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that the case squarely falls within the Parameters of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhajanlal (Supra), as the complaint is maliciously filed with mala fide intention and ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioner accused. It is further submitted that the developments post execution of the Will and upto the filing of the complaint bring out clearly that the complaint is instituted at the instance of frustrated and chagrined litigants who failed to succeed before the revenue authorities and who failed to get an injunction from the Civil Courts. 3.06. Mr. Mehta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that the dispute is of a purely civil nature, which is tried to be converted into criminal case, which is nothing but abuse of process of law and Court and therefore, the impugned complaint deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that one Regular Civil Suit No. 493/99 is already instituted by the sons of the testator against the petitioner and others with a prayer to restrain the defendants from alienating or transferring the land. It is submitted that one another Regular Civil Suit No. 467/05 instituted by the sons of the testator against the petitioner and others praying inter alia to stop the construction over the land. It is submitted that one another Regular Civil Suit No. 578/05 has been instituted by the sons of the testator against the petitioner and others challenging the Will dated 6/11/1989. It is submitted that one Special Civil Suit No. 56/06 has also been instituted by the complainant against the sons of the testator, the petitioner and others praying inter alia for specific performance of the registered Agreement to Sell dated 29/9/1997 in which the Will dated 06.11.1989 is also challenged. It is further submitted that even the complainant has failed to get injunction in Special Civil Suit No. 56 of 2006 and even the order passed by the learned trial Court refusing to grant interim injunction has been confirmed by this Court. It is further submitted that even the sons of the testator have also lost in the revenue proceedings upto this Court. It is further submitted that even the sons of the testator have also lost in the revenue proceedings upto this Court. It is submitted that, therefore, the impugned complaint is nothing but abuse of process of Court and law which deserves to be quashed and set aside. By making above submissions and relying upon above decisions, it is requested to quash and set aside the impugned complaint/criminal proceedings. 4.00. Mr. B.M. Mangukiya, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner of Criminal Misc. Application No. 14831 of 2006 - original accused No. 2 named Mukesh Verma has submitted that as such there are no averments and allegations against the petitioner - original accused No. 2 with respect to forgery of the Will and/or even with regard to forged signatures of the sons of the testator and/or attesting witnesses to the Will. It is submitted that as such the petitioner - original accused No. 2 is the bonafide purchaser of the land in question, who has purchased the land way back in the year 1997 and therefore, in fact, he was not even in picture at the time when the Will was executed by the original land owner. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned complaint deserves to be quashed and set aside so far as petitioner - original accused No. 2 is concerned, as there is no case at all against the original accused No. 2 for the offences alleged in the impugned complaint. 5.00. Criminal Misc. Application No. 13045 of 2006 whcih is filed by the petitioner - original accused No. 1, is opposed by Mr. P.M. Thakkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original complainant. It is submitted that even there are no specific averments and / or contentions pleaded in the petition to quash the complaint on the grounds that [a] the complaint is filed at a very belated stage [b] the complainant has locus-standi to file the complaint [c] no explanation has been provided in the complaint regarding the delay in filing the complaint and [d] that the legal heirs of the original land owner has not filed any complaint. It is submitted that the aforesaid contentions are raised before this Court orally and therefore, it is submitted that when the aforesaid contentions are not pleaded or raised in the memo of petition, this Court may not consider the same while considering the quashing petition. 5.01. Mr. P.M. Thakkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original complainant has further submitted that even otherwise, on the aforesaid ground the impugned complaint is not required to be quashed and set aside. 5.02. Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the petitioner - original accused that the complaint is filed at a very belated stage, it is submitted by Mr. P.M. Thakkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original complainant that, as such the complaint is not filed at a belated stage. It is submitted that the complaint is filed at the earliest when the complainant came to know from the legal heirs of the original land owners that some construction activity is going on at the disputed land by the original accused No. 2 and thereafter, on inquiry the complainant came to know that the petitioner - original accused No. 1 on the basis of the alleged Will alleged to have been executed by the original land owner in favour of the applicant – original accused No. 1 has sold the subject land to the original accused No. 2. It is submitted that as soon as the complainant came to know about the forged Will, he has resorted to both the remedies i.e. Civil as well as Criminal. It is submitted that the complainant has filed the Civil Suit No. 56 of 2006 against the heirs of the original land owners and others praying for specific performance of the Agreement to sell dated 29/9/1997 and simultaneously the complainant also approached the CID Crime, Gandhinagar by filing application questioning genuineness of the Will alleged to have been executed by the original land owners in favour of the petitioner - - original accused No. 1. It is submitted that on 30/3/2006 the complainant made an application to the Additional Director of Police, CID Crime, alleging that the Will in question is forged and fabricated. It is submitted that on 30/3/2006 the complainant made an application to the Additional Director of Police, CID Crime, alleging that the Will in question is forged and fabricated. It is submitted that though the complainant approached the authority by way of application dated 30/3/2006, the authority did not initiate any proceedings against the accused persons and therefore, the complainant again sent a reminder in the month of June, 2006 and only thereafter an inquiry was commenced and the accused persons were summoned for production of the forged Will, however, the petitioner - original accused No. 1 did not produce the Will in question. It is submitted that number of efforts were made by the concerned authorities to get the original Will for the purpose of examination for the genuineness of the Will, however, the petitioner - original accused No. 1 did not obey and respect the Summonses under the guise that the original Will is not traceable. It is submitted that therefore, CID Crime, by letter dated 4/11/2006, suggested the complainant to file a criminal complaint against the accused persons and therefore, the impugned complaint came to be filed by the complainant. It is submitted that even till today the original Will has not been produced in the Civil Proceedings as well as in the Criminal Proceedings. It is submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), has passed an order under Section. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to investigate the crime in question and to file report within 30 days. It is submitted that the investigation is at a very initial stage and the alleged Will is yet to be recovered from the petitioner - original accused No. 1 and therefore, it is requested not to exercise powers under Section. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at this stage and not to quash and set aside the impugned complaint at this stage. 5.03. Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the petitioner - accused that the complainant has no locus-standi to file the complaint, it is submitted by Mr. P.M. Thakkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original complainant that the complainant is the holder of the registered Agreement to sell and they have interest in the subject land. It is submitted that even otherwise, it is settled legal position that any person can put the criminal machinery into motion. 5.4. P.M. Thakkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original complainant that the complainant is the holder of the registered Agreement to sell and they have interest in the subject land. It is submitted that even otherwise, it is settled legal position that any person can put the criminal machinery into motion. 5.4. Mr. P.M. Thakkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original complainant has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.R. Antulay vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, reported in 1984 (2) SCC 500 , more particularly Para 6, in support of his above submission. It is submitted that as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision, any person unless there is bar of statute can move the criminal machinery. It is submitted that, therefore, the complainant who has interest in the land in question can certainly put the criminal machinery in motion. 5.05. Mr. P.M. Thakkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original complainant has further submitted that the delay, if any, in filing the complaint is explained in the complaint itself and it is specifically averred in the complaint that when the complainant was informed by the legal heirs of the original land owners that there is some movement going on on the subject land, on inquiry, the complainant came to know about the transaction and therefore, immediately the impugned complaint came to be filed. Therefore, it is submitted that it cannot be said that the complaint is filed by the complainant at a very belated stage. It is submitted that even otherwise, on the ground of delay, the impugned complaint is not required to be quashed and set aside. 5.06. Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the petitioner - original accused that the legal heirs of the original land owner has not resorted to any criminal proceedings, Mr. P.M. Thakkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original complainant has submitted that from the very beginning the legal heirs of the original land owner have questioned the legality and genuineness of the alleged Will. It is submitted that in any case, the legal heirs have never supported the petitioner - original accused and factum of genuineness of the Will. It is submitted that in any case, the legal heirs have never supported the petitioner - original accused and factum of genuineness of the Will. Therefore, it is submitted that the investigation is required to be made to find out the truth of the genuineness of the Will. It is submitted that the investigation is required for the purpose of [a] to find out the genuineness of the Will in question; [b] Whether the Will in question was created or forged or not?; [c] Whether the Will in question has been created or forged before the death of the original land owner or after the death of the original land owner. It is submitted that for the aforesaid purpose, fair and impartial investigation is necessary and therefore, it is requested to reject both the quashing petitions and permit the investigating agency to investigate the crime in question in just and impartial manner. 5.07. Mr. P.M. Thakkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original complainant has relied upon the following decision in support of his aforesaid submissions and to dismiss both these quashing petitions:— i. (2005) 13 SCC 540 (Para 11) (State of Orissa & Anr. vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo). ii. (2008) 16 SCC 390 (Para 15 and 16) (M. Viswanathan vs. M/s. S.K. Tiles & Potteries P. Ltd.) iii. (2009) 1 SCC 516 (R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta) iv. (2010) 1 SCC 250 (Para 12 and 13) (Suman vs. State of Rajasthan) 6.00. Mr. K.P. Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent State has requested to pass appropriate order looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, however, has submitted that whatever the submissions have been made on behalf of the original accused No. 1 are all his defences, which are required to be considered at the time of trial. 7.00. Heard Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 7.01. As stated hereinabove, Criminal Misc. Application No. 13045 of 2006 has been preferred by the petitioner – Vijay Hathising Shah - original accused No. 1 in whose favour Will dated 6/11/1989 was executed by original land owner – Shambhubhai Becharbhai Patel, under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash and set aside further investigation of the M.Case No. 2 of 2006 registered against him with the CID (Crime), Gandhinagar Zone Police Station. It is further prayed to quash and set aside Criminal Case No. 226 of 2006 filed by the original complainant – Respondent No. 3, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 114, 120B read with Section. 34 of Indian Penal Code. Criminal Misc. Application No. 14831 of 2006 has been preferred by the petitioner - Mukesh Verma – original accused No. 2, who has purchased the land subsequently in the year 1997-1999, for the aforesaid relief and to quash and set aside the aforesaid complaint/Criminal Case. 7.02. At the outset, it is required to be noted that allegation against the original accused are for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 114, 120B read with Section. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging inter-alia that the original accused have manufactured and got executed a Will dated 6/11/1989 of one Shambhubhai Becharbhai Patel (erstwhile owner of two parcels of land bearing Old Survey No. 356 and 1162 Paiki, admeasuring 4879 sq.mtrs. situated at Vejalpur, Ahmedabad), by forging the signatures of three witnesses to the Will, two of whom (Vadibhai Shambhubhai Patel and Ranchhodbhai Shambhubhai Patel) are the sons of testator Shambhubhai Becharbhai Patel. It is to be noted that the impugned complaint has been filed by the original complainant in the year 2006 for the offences alleged to have been committed in the year 1989 i.e. a complaint has been filed after a period of 17 years. It is also required to be noted that though allegations are with respect to forged signatures of two witnesses to the Will i.e. sons of the testator namely Vadibhai Shambhubhai Patel and Ranchhodbhai Shambhubhai Patel, none of them have filed any complaint or have made any allegation that their signatures have been forged. It is the purchaser- original complainant in whose favour alleged agreement to sell alleged to have been executed by the aforesaid two sons of the original land owner executed in the year 1997, have filed the complaint in question. Therefore, it is the case on behalf of the petitioners, more particularly accused No. 1 that original complainant has no locus to file the complaint. It is the case on behalf of the original complainant that anybody can put the criminal machinery in motion. Therefore, it is the case on behalf of the petitioners, more particularly accused No. 1 that original complainant has no locus to file the complaint. It is the case on behalf of the original complainant that anybody can put the criminal machinery in motion. It is true that anybody can put the criminal machinery in motion and there cannot be any dispute with regard to the same. However, the question which is required to be considered is that, those persons whose signatures are alleged to have been forged, though are alive and though subsequently initiated some proceedings, when they are not making any grievance or complaint with respect to forging their signature can the original complainant who is third party can make a grievance with respect to alleged forging of the aforesaid two witnesses? 7.03. From the chronological list of events, as stated hereinabove, it appears that as such aforesaid two witnesses to the Will i.e. sons of the original land owners and sons of the testator are not in a position to initiate any criminal proceedings, as in the subsequent proceeding and the transaction both of them have signed as confirming parties and at no point of time till 2005-2006 they have disputed any transaction and/or Will and, therefore, they are not in a position to initiate any criminal proceedings and/or any other proceedings and, therefore, they have not initiated any proceedings alleging forging of their signatures. At no point of time till 2005-2006 they have challenged any of the transactions which were on the basis of the Will executed by the testator – their father. The aforesaid aspect is required to be considered while considering both these petitions under Section. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which have been preferred by the original accused for quashing and setting aside the impugned criminal complaint and the proceedings of the criminal case arising out of the said complaint, against them. 7.04. It is to be noted that there was an agreement to sell executed in the year 1988 by the testator Shambhubhai Patel – original owner in favour of one Utter Pradesh Co-operative Housing Society Limited with respect to the aforesaid two parcels of land. 7.04. It is to be noted that there was an agreement to sell executed in the year 1988 by the testator Shambhubhai Patel – original owner in favour of one Utter Pradesh Co-operative Housing Society Limited with respect to the aforesaid two parcels of land. The original owner Shambhubhai Patel executed a Will on 06/11/1989 by which original accused No. 1 was authorised to execute sale deed in favour of Utter Pradesh Co-operative Housing Society Limited, for conveyance of the aforesaid two parcels of land. It appears that two sons of the testator – original owner – Shambhubhai Patel attested the said Will and put the signatures as attesting witnesses. The said testator Shambhubhai Patel died on 13/11/1989. That on 18/11/1989, one affidavit was sworn by the sons of the testator solemnly declaring on oath that on 6/11/1989 the testator Shambhubahi Becharbhai Patel had shown his Will to them and they had attested and put their signatures to the Will in presence of the testator. It appears that on the very day on 18/11/1989 a Declaration was made by the sons of the testator to the effect that they have no right, title or interest in the aforesaid two parcels of land and that they are aware about the Will executed by their father - Shambhubhai Becharbhai Patel and they consented to the said Will. That Revenue entry No. 5960 was made in the revenue record mentioning the execution of the Will in respect of the aforesaid two parcels of land. In the said entry the name of the original accused No. 1 was also mentioned as executor of the Will. It appears that a declaration was also made by the male heirs of the testator before the Talati-cum-Mantri on 1/1/1990 with regard to the aforesaid two parcels of land to the effect that the male heirs have no right, title or interest in the aforesaid two parcels of land and they have consented to the Will executed by their father and they have no objection to the nomination of the original accused No. 1 as Executor of the Will. It appears that thereafter two sale deeds came to be executed on 6/1/1990 by the original accused No. 1 as executor of the Will in favour of Utter Pradesh Co-operative Housing Society Limited, wherein the sons of the testator stood as confirming party, which was for the aforesaid two parcels of the land. Thereafter revenue proceedings were initiated challenging Revenue entry No. 5960, by one Kantaben, daughter of Shambhubhai Becharbhai Patel, challenging certification of Revenue Entry No. 5960, which came to be withdrawn unconditionally by her and subsequently the Mutation Entry No. 5960 was confirmed. It appears that again one affidavit was sworn by the sons of the testator on 10/4/1990 affirming that they have no right, title or interest in the aforesaid two parcels of land. It appears that thereafter in the year 1998 I.e. after a period of 8 years of the sale deed in favour of the Utter Pradesh Co-operative Housing Society Limited, the aforesaid two sons of the original land owner challenged Mutation Entry No. 5960 before the City Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad, by way of preferring RTS Appeal No. 67/98, which came to be dismissed by the City Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad, vide order dated 21/12/1998. It appears that against the aforesaid order passed by the City Dy.Collector, Ahmedabad in rejecting Revision Application No. 67 of 1999 in rejecting the Revision Application preferred by two sons of the original land owners, they preferred further revision before the District Collector, Ahmedabad, which came to be dismissed on 6/9/1999. It appears that thereafter aforesaid two sons of the original land owner preferred further revision application before the State i.e. Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Gujarat being Revision Application No. 97 of 1999, which also came to be dismissed by the learned revisional authority by order dated 20/07/2005. The aforesaid three orders came to be challenged by the sons of the testator before this High Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 24411 of 2005 and the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the said Special Civil Application by observing in its order that the aforesaid two sons had been the signatories to the Will and had consented to the Will of the aforesaid two parcels of land in favour of Utter Pradesh Co-operative Housing Society Limited and, therefore, the orders passed by the revenue authorities cannot be said to be erroneous. It appears that during the pendency of the aforesaid two proceedings, aforesaid two sons of the testator filed Regular Civil Suit No. 493 of 1999 before the Civil Court for permanent injunction against the alienation of the aforesaid two parcels of the land and in the said suit, an application for interim injunction was filed at Ex.5, which came to be rejected by the learned Civil Judge, Ahmedabad Rural vide order dated 29/9/2001. It appears that thereafter Regular Civil Suit No. 467 of 2005 has been instituted by the sons of the testator against original accused No. 1 and others praying inter-alia to stop the construction on the land in question. It is to be noted that till then two sons of the testator did not challenge the Will and/or execution of the Will at all. It appears that in the meantime, one Agreement-to-sell was entered into by the aforesaid two sons of the testator in favour of the complainant on 29/9/1997. It appears that thereafter for the first time in the year 2005, by way of Regular Civil Suit No. 578 of 2005 the sons of the testator have challenged the Will dated 6/11/1989. Thereafter after a period of almost 8 years of the execution of the alleged Agreement-to-sell in favour of the complainant executed by the two sons of the testator, the original complainant has instituted Special Civil Suit No. 56 of 2006 against the sons of the testator, original accused No. 1 and Others, praying iner-alia for specific performance of the registered agreement to sell dated 29/9/1997 and in the said suit, Will dt.6/11/1989 is also challenged. In the said suit being Special Civil Suit No. 56 of 2006 an application was also submitted by the original complainant for interim injunction at Ex.5 which came to be rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 5/4/2007, against which the original complainant preferred Appeal From Order No. 163 of 2007 before this Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 26/9/2008 dismissed the said Appeal From Order confirming the order passed by the learned trial Court refusing to grant interim injunction in favour of the complainant. That in between and after the aforesaid Special Civil Suit 56 of 2006 was filed by the original complainant, the original complainant has filed the present criminal complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad Rural under Section. That in between and after the aforesaid Special Civil Suit 56 of 2006 was filed by the original complainant, the original complainant has filed the present criminal complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad Rural under Section. 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 114, 120B read with Section. 34 of Indian Penal Code on 6/11/2006 and the learned Magistrate has passed an order sending the complaint to the police officer for investigation under Section. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which has been numbered as M. Case No. 2/2006, which is subject matter of the present proceedings. 7.05. Thus, from the aforesaid facts and chronological events, it appears that initiation of the criminal proceedings against the accused is nothing but abuse of process of Court and law and civil dispute is tried to be converted into criminal complaint /proceedings. As stated hereinabove, the sons of the testator and even original complainant have failed to get injunction in their favour in the civil proceedings. As stated above, though the Will was executed on 6/11/89 along with the signatures of two sons of the testator as attesting witnesses, till 2005 Will was not challenged at all by the sons of the testator. Even the sons of the testator also failed before the revenue authorities and said orders came to be confirmed up to this Court. As stated above, even after 1989 there were number of documents signed by the sons of the testator confirming execution of the Will in question dated 6/11/89 by their father – testator and having signed as attesting witnesses. Not only that but in the subsequent two sale deeds executed in favour of Utter Pradesh Co-operative Housing Society Limited, which were executed by original accused No. 1 on the basis of the Will dated 6/11/89, both the sons of the testator whose signatures are alleged to have been forged in the Will dated 6/11/1989, have signed the said sale deeds as confirming parties. 7.06. It is to be noted that so far as the original complainant is concerned, he comes into the picture only in the year 1997 when agreement to sell dated 29/9/97 alleged to have been executed by the aforesaid two sons of the testator in favour of the complainant. 7.06. It is to be noted that so far as the original complainant is concerned, he comes into the picture only in the year 1997 when agreement to sell dated 29/9/97 alleged to have been executed by the aforesaid two sons of the testator in favour of the complainant. As stated hereinabove, after a period of 8 years of the alleged agreement to sell, the original complainant has instituted the suit in the year 2006 being Special Civil Suit No. 56/2006 for specific performance of the agreement to sell. 7.07. Thus, the initiation of criminal proceedings in the year 2006 against the petitioners - original accused for the offences alleged to have been taken place in the year 1989 i.e. forging of the signatures of the attesting witnesses – sons of the testator, etc. is nothing but a belated and mala fide attempt on the part of the original complainant just with a view to presurize the parties in the civil proceedings and it is nothing but sheer and clear misuse and abuse of process of Court and law. 7.08. It is to be noted that in the meantime and after the sale deeds were executed in favour of Utter Pradesh Co-operative Housing Society Limited, the said society was bifurcated into two societies and one Acharya Buddhi Sagar Co-operative Society was also formed in the year 1989 and some portion of the land was sold in favour of the said society, of which the accused No. 2 was the member. It is to be noted that in between there is full construction on the aforesaid two parcels of land in question and societies have been formed and constructed and so many other persons are residing therein. 7.09. Considering the aforesaid facts and overall facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the original complainant and two sons of the testator who are attesting witnesses to the Will dated 6/11/89 have failed to obtain favourable orders in the civil proceedings and they have realised that they are not likely to succeed in the civil proceedings and hence the complaint in question has been filed by the complainant in their collusion with mala fide intention. Under the circumstances, this is a fit case to exercise extra ordinary power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7.10. Under the circumstances, this is a fit case to exercise extra ordinary power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7.10. As stated above, the offences are alleged to have been committed by the original accused in the year 1989 for which, complaint in question have been filed in the year 2006. As stated hereianbove, in between there are number of transactions taken place and two sale deeds have been executed by the original accused on the basis of the Will dated 6/11/89 and the said two sons of the testator have signed the said two sale deeds as confirming parties and in between number of declarations have been signed by them confirming execution of the Will dated 6/11/89. 7.11. That in Kishan Singh (Supra), the Supreme Court in Para 22 has observed and held as under:— “22. In cases where there is a delay in lodging a FIR, the Court has to look for a plausible explanation for such delay. In absence of such an explanation, the delay may be fatal. The reason for quashing such proceedings may not be merely that the allegations were an after thought or had given a coloured version of events. In such cases the Court should carefully examine the facts before it for the reason that a frustrated litigant who failed to succeed before the Civil Court may initiate criminal proceedings just to harass the other side with mala fide intentions or the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the other party. Chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustrations by cheaply invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal court. The Court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and persecution. In such a case, where an FIR is lodged clearly with a view to spite the other party because of a private and personal grudge and to enmesh the other party in long and arduous criminal proceedings, the Court may take a view that it amounts to an abuse of the process of law in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 7.12. In the present case, the original complainant has tried to explain the delay by submitting that he came to know about the execution of the Will only in the year 2005 when in the written statement the aforesaid two sons of the original owner declared execution of the Will dated 6/11/1989, which in the facts and circumstances cannot be accepted. It is to be noted that the allegations made by the complainant are with respect to forging signatures of two sons of the testator, who subsequently executed Agreement to sell in the year 1997 in favour of the original complainant, however those two sons of the original testator whose signatures are alleged to have been forged have not filed any complaint and/or have not made any complaint with respect to forging their signatures and it is the complainant, who is holder or the agreement to sell executed by the two sons of the testator, is making grievance that too after a period of 18 years. 7.13. It is to be noted that so far as the accused No. 2 is concerned, he is one of the Member of the society who subsequently purchased the land and till the society purchased the land in the year 1997/1998, he was not in the picture at all and therefore, there is no question of committing any offence by him in the year 1989 i.e. at the time when the original owner – testator executed the Will dated 6/11/1989 in favour of the original accused No. 1. Therefore, impugned complaint and prosecution against the accused No. 2 is malicious and abuse of process of Court and law. 7.14. Considering the overall aspects of the matter this Court is of the opinion that impugned complaint is maliciously filed with oblique motive to pressurize the parties in the civil proceedings and the same are nothing but sheer and clear abuse and misuse of process of law and court. Considering the Bhajanlal’s reported in case (2009 Supplement) 1 SCC, 335, this Court is of the firm opinion that present criminal proceedings are sheer and clear abuse of process of law and hence this is a fit case to exercise extraordinary powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to quash and set aside the impugned complaint and terminate the criminal proceedings arising out of the said complaint. 8.00. 8.00. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, both the petition succeed. The impugned complaint being M.Case No. 2 of 2006 lodged by the original complainant against the petitioners herein – original accused Nos. 1 and 2, with the CID (Crime), Gandhinagar Zone Police Station, Gandhinagar is hereby quashed and set aside and proceedings arising out of the said complaint i.e. proceedings of Criminal Case No. 226 of 2006 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad Rural are hereby terminated. Rule is made absolute the aforesaid extent in each application. P P P P P