Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2145 (GUJ)

Ashokbhai Bhikhubhai Dhokiya v. State of Gujarat

2016-10-27

B.N.KARIA

body2016
ORDER : B.N. Karia, J. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. R.C. Kodekar waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent. 2. Learned Advocate Mr. Nandish Thakkar submits that learned Advocate Mr. Premal Rachh would be appearing on behalf of the original complainant and requests that this Court may permit the filing of the Vakalatnama on behalf of the original complainant. 3. Permission as prayed for is granted. 4. Considering the averments made in this application, the transactions of the land in dispute was carried out between the present applicant and the complainant in the year 2016. However, on account of non-payment of the installment amount within the stipulated time period, this transaction was cancelled. Thereafter, the alleged transaction of 24 plots was carried out in the month of June 2016 through the accused No. 3 - the power of attorney in the name of the complainant and his brother by creating forged documents like PAN Card and affixing photographs, as per the averments made in the complaint. 5. As argued by learned Advocate for the applicant Mr. Hardik A. Dave the power of attorney - the accused No. 3 has preferred a quashing application before this Court, i.e. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 5088/2016 which was dismissed on 10.08.2016 Against the order passed by this Court, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6885 of 2016 was preferred before the Hon'ble Apex Court which was not interfered with by the Apex Court and was dismissed accordingly. Further interim protection was granted from arrest was granted for a period) of four weeks and during the above period, the applicant therein was granted the liberty to appear before the Trial Court and seek regular bail by serving an advance copy to the respondents/learned Public Prosecutor. Here, the case of the applicant is on a different footing as transactions carried out with the original complainant was cancelled in the month of February 2016. 6. However, learned Advocate Mr. Nandish Thakkar appearing for the original complainant prays for time to file certain documentary evidences in support of his arguments. 7. Hence, this matter may be fixed for hearing on 10th November, 2016. Meanwhile, the Investigating Officer shall not arrest the applicant herein for the First Information Report registered against the applicant vide I-C.R. No. 135 of 2016 with Jamnagar City ‘C Division Police Station, till the next date of hearing. 8. 7. Hence, this matter may be fixed for hearing on 10th November, 2016. Meanwhile, the Investigating Officer shall not arrest the applicant herein for the First Information Report registered against the applicant vide I-C.R. No. 135 of 2016 with Jamnagar City ‘C Division Police Station, till the next date of hearing. 8. Direct Service is permitted.