JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani for the petitioner in Special Criminal Application No. 5367 of 2014, learned Advocate Mr. N.R. Gandhi for the petitioners in Special Criminal Application No. 5308 of 2014, learned Advocate Mr. P.P. Majmudar for the petitioners in Special Criminal Application No. 5282 of 2014, learned APP Ms. Moxa Thakkar for the respondent-State and learned Advocate Mr. Tejas Barot for the respondent No.2- original complainant in all three petitions. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP Ms. Moxa Thakkar waives service of rule for the respondent No.1-State and learned Advocate Mr. Tejas Barot waives service of rule for the respondent No.2- original complainant. 3. With consent of the parties the petitions are taken up for final hearing. 4. The petitioners have been arraigned as accused in the criminal complaint being M. Case No. 01 of 2014 registered with Vagadod Police Station, District Patan and since all the petitions are challenging the selfsame FIR, therefore the same have been heard together and are decided by way of this common order. 5. Facts leading to the present petitions can be summarized as hereunder : 5.1 The impugned complaint being M. Case No. 01 of 2014 came to be registered with Vagadod Police Station, District Patan on 12.11.2014 alleging the offences punishable under Sections 420, 466, 468, 471, 120 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The said criminal case came to be registered at the instance of respondent No.2 herein, who had initially preferred Court Inquiry Case No. 183 of 2014 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patan and whereas the learned 7th Additional JMFC, Patan vide order dated 05.11.2014 had directed the concerned Police Station to investigate the complaint under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 5.2 The complainant has inter alia alleged in the complaint that his ancestors were having two parcels of land bearing revenue survey Nos. 55 Paiki 2 and 55 Paiki 3 situated at village Vadu, District Patan, and whereas according to the complainant, taking disadvantage of the ignorance of the complainant and his ancestors, the revenue entry No. 87 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 10.12.1953 whereby the land bearing revenue survey No. 55 Paiki 5 came to be shown as being ownership of one Rabari Madha Visa. It is further stated that one Talja Mohan Rabari being legal heir of Rabari Madha Visa had sold the land bearing survey No. 55 Paiki 5 by way of sale deed dated 19.11.1983 in favour of the accused No.2 in the complaint. It is alleged that the said parcel of land had been sold by the legal heir of Rabari Madha Visa inspite of the seller not having any right, title or interest in the land in question and whereas it is alleged that the said sale was in connivance between the legal heirs of Rabari Madha Visa and the purchasers of the land in question. It is further alleged that one Hanifaben Rasulbhai Aghariya had expired in the year 1992 and whereas name of Ibrahimbhai Rasulbhai Aghariya who is petitioner No.1 in Special Criminal Application No. 52825 of 2014 and accused No.1 in the complaint came to be entered into the revenue record as legal heir of deceased Hanifaben Rasulbhai. It is alleged that in the year 2008, entry No.1796 had been mutated in the revenue record showing as if the deceased Hanifaben has been alive and a family settlement came to be recorded where 05 parcels of land came in favour of the accused No.4 in the complaint who is also petitioner No. 4 in Special Criminal Application No. 5282 of 2014. It is alleged that the said entry came to be finalized by the government officials without checking the record, more particularly since a family settlement deed came to be entered into record where thumb impression of Hanifaben came to be taken inspite of the fact that she was not alive on that day. Allegations have been made also against the accused Nos. 5 and 6 who are shown to be having signed the family settlement deed and whereas it is alleged that they were part of the criminal conspiracy. Thus alleging, the criminal complaint being M. Case No. 01 of 2014 came to be registered which is impugned in all the three petitions. 5.3 Special Criminal Application No. 5367 of 2014 has been preferred by the accused No.7 in the complaint i.e. Talati-cum-Mantri of Vadu Gram Panchayat who had certified the entry in question, Special Criminal Application No. 5368 of 2014 has been preferred by accused Nos. 5.3 Special Criminal Application No. 5367 of 2014 has been preferred by the accused No.7 in the complaint i.e. Talati-cum-Mantri of Vadu Gram Panchayat who had certified the entry in question, Special Criminal Application No. 5368 of 2014 has been preferred by accused Nos. 5 and 6 of the complaint and allegation against the said accused is that they had signed on the pedigree chart prepared by the other accused and therefore they were also part of the criminal conspiracy and Special Criminal Application No. 5282 of 2014 came to be preferred by accused Nos. 1 to 4 who had purchased the property from the legal heir of Rabari Madha Visa and who are further alleged to have committed the main alleged offence of having attempted to have family settlement mutated in revenue record by heirship entry which showed Hanifaben as being alive whereas she had expired in the year 1992. 5.4 At this stage it would be pertinent to mention that the entries in question being entry Nos. 1796 and 1808, whereby the land in question had been transferred in favour of accused No. 4 had been taken in suo motu revision by the District Collector, Patan vide proceedings being RTS/Suomotu/ Revision/7/14 and the said entries had been set aside vide order dated 21.03.2014 passed by the Collector in the said proceedings. 6. Learned Advocate Mr. P.P. Majmudar appearing for the petitioners in Special Criminal Application No. 5282 of 2014 has submitted that the petitioner No.1 before this Court in the said petition is son of the said deceased Hanifaben. He has submitted that while the main grievance of the original complainant is with regard to the entry No.87 mutated on 10.12.1953, yet for all these years the complainant has not taken any action against the same. He has further submitted that as far as the accused Nos. 1 to 4 are concerned, they are part of the same extended family. He has further submitted that six persons from the said family had purchased six different parcels of land from revenue survey No. 55/5 and which six parcels came to be numbered as 55/5 Paiki P1 to P6. That since sale deeds were dated 19.11.1983 and the entry No. 1036 had been mutated in the revenue record with regard to the said sale in question. That since sale deeds were dated 19.11.1983 and the entry No. 1036 had been mutated in the revenue record with regard to the said sale in question. It is further submitted by learned Advocate Mr.Majmudar that one of the family members i.e. Agahriya Rasulbhai Isabbhai who had purchased a plot bearing revenue survey No. 55/5 Paiki 1 had expired and names of his legal heirs were mutated in the revenue record for the said parcel of land vide entry No. 1255. 6.1 It is further submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar that wife of the said Rasulbhai Isabbhai had expired in the year 1992 and whereas names of legal heirs of the said deceased were already there on record, since her husband namely Rasulbhai Isabbhai had expired and his legal heirs had been brought on record. Learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar further submitted that what had been attempted to be done was that all parcels of land being revenue survey no. 55/5 Paiki 1 to 6, which had been purchased by family members of accused Nos. 1 to 4 had been sought to be transferred in the name of accused No.4 in the present complaint. He has further submitted that the said transfer was by way of family arrangement and whereas by way of such family arrangement, while they have committed a mistake in showing the deceased Hanifaben Rasulbhai as being alive, yet according to the learned Advocate, there was no intention to defraud anybody, more particularly since the land was being transferred from the name of family members separately to the name of one of the family members being accused No.4. He has further submitted that the land having reverted back in the name of individual members of the family as it stood earlier after the decision of the Collector, Patan dated 21.03.2014, whereby revenue entries Nos. 1796 and 1808 had been set aside by the Collector, Patan. Learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar has further submitted that no benefit had accrued on account of mutating the revenue entries Nos. 1796 and 1808 in the revenue record and furthermore learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar reiterates that those entries have already been set aside. Learned Advocate has further submitted that as far as the complaint is concerned, the complainant has raised various grievances after long delay and that the complainant has not taken any action with regard to his principal grievance. 1796 and 1808 in the revenue record and furthermore learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar reiterates that those entries have already been set aside. Learned Advocate has further submitted that as far as the complaint is concerned, the complainant has raised various grievances after long delay and that the complainant has not taken any action with regard to his principal grievance. Learned Advocate further submitted that as far as the present allegations are concerned, the complainant has no locus standi at all, more particularly since according to the complainant himself, the land in question had vested in Rabari Madha Visa or his legal heirs from the year 1953 itself. He has further submitted that in case of the allegations against the petitioners are concerned, while the alleged transaction had taken place in the year 2008, the complainant had approached the concerned Magistrate in the year 2014 and whereas the complaint came to be registered only in the year 2014. Learned Advocate submitted that having accepted that the land does not belong to him, the complainant had no locus whatsoever to have preferred the complaint, more particularly against the accused Nos. 1 to 4 who had purchased the property in the year 1984 from the legal heirs of the person in whose favour the entry had been mutated in the year 1953. 6.2 Learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar has also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1572 , where the Supreme Court explained the expression “defraud”. He has further submitted that the Court has drawn distinction namely where benefit or advantage is secured by the deceiver but no corresponding loss to the deceived it would not involve “fraud”. Under such circumstances, learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar has requested this Court to quash and set aside the impugned complaint, more particularly since neither any benefit has been caused to the alleged deceivers i.e. accused Nos. 1 to 4 and nor any corresponding loss has been caused to the deceived i.e. State Government. He has further submitted that in any cases even the Collector while setting aside the entries had directed departmental action against the Government official concerned, but he had not recommended any complaint to be registered against persons involved and therefore the complaint against the petitioners at the instance of the present complainant would not be maintainable. 7. He has further submitted that in any cases even the Collector while setting aside the entries had directed departmental action against the Government official concerned, but he had not recommended any complaint to be registered against persons involved and therefore the complaint against the petitioners at the instance of the present complainant would not be maintainable. 7. Learned Advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani appearing on behalf of the Government official namely Talati-cum-Mantri of Vadu Gram Panchayat has submitted that as far as the said petitioner is concerned, there is nothing in the complaint to show that the petitioner was involved in the criminal conspiracy. That while the said petitioner may be allegedly guilty of being negligent in his duties, but that would not automatically bring the petitioner in the purview of the offence alleged in the criminal complaint. Learned Advocate Mr. Jasani further submitted that upon recommendation of the Collector, Patan vide order dated 21.03.2014, whereby the Collector had set aside the entries Nos.1796 and 1808, departmental inquiry had been recommended against the said petitioner and whereas vide departmental inquiry proceedings, the petitioner has been punished with punishment for stoppage of one increment without future effect. Furthermore, learned Advocate Mr. Jasani has also supported and adopted the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Majmuar and furthermore learned Advocate Mr. Jasani also requested that the impugned complaint may be quashed and set aside. 8. Learned Advocate Mr. Nishit Gandhi appearing on behalf of the accused Nos. 5 and 6, signatories to the pedigree chart prepared by the accused Nos. 1 to 4, has submitted that except having signed the pedigree chart that too in good faith since the accused Nos. 1 to 4 were well known to the petitioners, there in nothing further which would link them to the alleged criminal conspiracy. Learned Advocate Mr.Gandhi has submitted that principal grievance of the complainant is with regard to the entry of the year of 1953 which he has not challenged and in a proceeding which has been maliciously instituted by the complainant, for no reason the petitioners have also been roped as accused. He has also supported and adopted the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar and submitted that the impugned complaint may be quashed and set aside by this Court. 9. Learned APP Ms. He has also supported and adopted the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar and submitted that the impugned complaint may be quashed and set aside by this Court. 9. Learned APP Ms. Moxa Thakkar appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that perusal of the complaint reveals that very serious allegations have been levelled against all the accused and whereas the accused had attempted to portrait as if a person who had expired in the year 1992 was alive in the year 2008 and had attempted to transfer the land by impersonating the dead person. Under such circumstances, she has submitted that this Court may not interfere at this stage and that the complaint may be permitted to proceed ahead. 10. Learned Advocate Mr. Tejas Barot for the original complainant has supported the complaint and has submitted that it is by now a well settled proposition of law that the criminal investigating machinery can be set into motion by any person and that locus of such person is inconsequential. He has further submitted that land of the family of the complainant had been fraudulently usurped by taking disadvantage of lack of education of the complainant and his family members. He has further submitted as far as the present accused are concerned, Hanifaben who had expired in the year 1992 was shown as being alive in the year 2008 and by impersonating Hanifaben the property in question had been transferred in the revenue record to the name of other persons. Learned Advocate Mr. Barot further submitted that by doing so, in addition to fraud committed by the accused, the State Government was defrauded of revenue of stamp duty. Learned Advocate has submitted that from the record it is prima facie clear that a dead person had been shown as being alive and transaction had been entered into by showing the dead person as alive, therefore he has submitted that there is enough material to show that prima facie the offence has been committed, and therefore this Court may not interfere at this stage. 11. Learned Advocates for the parties have not submitted anything further. 12. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. 11. Learned Advocates for the parties have not submitted anything further. 12. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. The complaint impugned in these proceedings sets out two different sets of grievances inasmuch as the complainant submits about land belonging to the complainant and his family members being usurped by another person by making a false revenue entry in the year 1953; the other part of the allegation is with regard to the transaction by the accused herein namely of showing Hanifaben being alive and so forth. 13. It would be pertinent to mention here that as far as the entry of the year 1953 is concerned, the complainant has not made anyone as accused in the complaint and furthermore a deeper perusal of the complaint reveals that the said allegation has been mentioned as a formality since the allegations by the complainant are with regard to the transaction by the petitioners. 14. While it is undoubtedly true, as submitted by the learned Advocate for the complainant that criminal investigating machinery can be set into motion by any person and it is not necessary that only victim or the injured can set the same into motion. On the other hand, the issue in the present case would be, more particularly keeping in view the grievance of the complainant with regard to the usurpation of land belonging to his family members that whether the present complaint is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive as to wreak vengeance on the accused due to grudge held by the complainant. 15. While the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the accused have submitted that there is no criminality involved in the alleged act committed by the petitioners and whereas relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Dr.Vimla (supra), it is urged that the incident in question did not involve any deceit and nor did it cause any injury to anyone. It was submitted that the act in question did not cause any advantage to the accused Nos. 1 to 4 nor did it cause any correspondence loss to anyone. 16. As against the same learned APP as well as learned Advocate for the complainant have submitted that there was a clear case of impersonating a dead person and by doing so, the intent was to cause loss of stamp duty to the State exchequer. 17. 1 to 4 nor did it cause any correspondence loss to anyone. 16. As against the same learned APP as well as learned Advocate for the complainant have submitted that there was a clear case of impersonating a dead person and by doing so, the intent was to cause loss of stamp duty to the State exchequer. 17. In this connection the transaction in question needs to be looked into closely. Land bearing survey No. 55/5 had been divided into six parcels and vide registered sale deeds dated 19.11.1983, family members of accused Nos. 1 to 4 had purchased the six parcels from the legal heirs of Rabari Mohan Madha who was owner of the land in question. One of the members of the family one Rasulbhai Isabbhai Aghariya had expired in the year 1990 and vide entry No. 1324, names of his legal heirs including his widow Hanifaben had been entered in the revenue record vide entry No. 1255. The said Hanifaben expired in the year 1992 and whereas vide entry No. 1324, names of her legal heirs came to be entered into revenue record with regard to the land bearing survey no. 55/5 Paiki 1. By way of family settlement, the revenue survey No. 55/5 Paiki 1 went in favour of accused No.4 Muman Sabdarali Daudbhai Aghariya. Further land bearing survey No. 55/5 Paiki 3 to Paki 6 also was transferred in favour of the same Sabdarali Aghariya. In this regard two separate revenue entries came to be mutated. With regard to the revenue entry No. 1808 deceased Hanifaben was shown as being alive and land bearing revenue survey no. 55/5 Paiki 1 was entered in the revenue record in the name of Sabdarali Aghariya by way of inheritance entry and whereas by way of revenue entry No.1796 four other parcels of land referred to hereinabove being revenue survey No. 55/5 Paiki 3 to Paiki 6 were entered into the revenue record in the name of Sabdarali Aghariya by way of family partition deed. In this entry there was reference to land which was held by Hanifaben. Learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that no benefit or advantage had been cause to the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 showing Hanifaben who had died in the year 1992 being alive. In this entry there was reference to land which was held by Hanifaben. Learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that no benefit or advantage had been cause to the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 showing Hanifaben who had died in the year 1992 being alive. It is submitted that since the entire arrangement was with the consent of the entire family and since legal heirs of Hanifaben were already on record, there is no reason whatsoever to have shown Hanifaben as being alive, more particularly since other members of the family who were owners of the revenue survey No. 55/5 paiki 3 to 5 have also consented to their land being given to Sabdarali Aghariya by way of family partition. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that while it is true that a mistake had been committed by showing Hanifaben as being alive but nothing turns on the same. 18. As against the same neither learned APP nor learned Advocate for the complainant could explain to the Court as to the advantage accused Nos. 1 to 4 had derived by showing Hanifaben as being alive. Both the learned APP and learned Advocate for the complainant have submitted that as noted by the Collector vide order dated 21.03.2014, that there was a attempt to cause loss to the State exchequer. In the considered opinion of this Court, the same is an erroneous submission. The transaction which may have caused loss to the State exchequer was the transaction whereby different parcles of land were transferred to Sabdarali Aghariya. That instead of transferring property i.e. parcels of land here, by way of registered sale deeds, the parties to the transaction had attempted to transfer the land under the guise of family settlment. On the other hand, since legal heirs of deceased Hanifaben were already existing on the record, no additional benefit would have accrued either in favour of the sellers or the purchasers, as the case may be. Thus, this Court finds that by impersonating deceased Hanifaben to show her as alive, none of the petitioners had gained any benefit or advantage and nor any correspondence loss had been caused to anyone much less to the State Government. 19. With regard to the submissions of no advantage caused to the accused, more particularly accused Nos. Thus, this Court finds that by impersonating deceased Hanifaben to show her as alive, none of the petitioners had gained any benefit or advantage and nor any correspondence loss had been caused to anyone much less to the State Government. 19. With regard to the submissions of no advantage caused to the accused, more particularly accused Nos. 1 to 4 and no correspondence loss to anyone including the State Government, this Court deem it beneficial to quote the observations of the Supreme Court in case of Dr.Vimla (supra) as under. “14. To summarize, the expression “defraud” involves two elements, namely, deceit any injury to the person deceived injury in something other than economic loss that is, deprivation of property, whether movable or immovable, or of money, and it will include any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or such others. In short, it is non-economic or non-pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver will almost always cause loss or detriment to the deceived. Even in those rare cases where there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the deceived, the second condition is satisfied.” As explained hereinabove, the injury that may have been caused with regard to the transaction in question would be to the State Government in form of loss of money on account of non registration of transfer of property. That by depicting late Hanifaben as being alive, no loss has been caused to the State Government or to any other person, as already explained hereinabove. Thus, there does not appear to be any fraudulent transaction having taken place. Undoubtedly, the petitioners have shown a dead person as being alive but at the same time since there does not appear to be any 'corresponding loss' to any person/s, therefore this Court is of the opinion that the impugned complaint deserves interference by this Court. 20. As far as role attributed to the accused Nos. 5, 6 and 7 is concerned, since the Court has held that no advantage had been caused to the petitioners and no correspondence loss has been caused to the State, therefore the same finding would applying mutatis mutandis to the accused Nos. 5, 6 and 7. Furthermore, the role attributed to accused Nos. 5 and 6 was of identifying the pedigree chart prepared by the accused Nos. 5, 6 and 7. Furthermore, the role attributed to accused Nos. 5 and 6 was of identifying the pedigree chart prepared by the accused Nos. 1 to 4 and there is no other allegation even in the complaint that the petitioners were part of the criminal conspiracy, if any. Insofar as accused No.7 is concerned, while there is an allegation that he took thumb impression of the person who was impersonating deceased Hanifaben and furthermore the entries in question being Nos. 1796 and 1808 had been certified without taking proper care, here also there is no specific allegation that the said accused was part of the criminal conspiracy or that he had received any pecuniary gain out of the same. Even the departmental inquiry held against the said accused held him guilty of negligence and does not allege anything further against the said accused. 21. Furthermore, it would be relevant to mention here that upon an application by the complainant, in exercise of powers under Section 108(6) of the Land Revenue Code, the Collector had taken the entire issue in suo motu revision and had quashed and set aside the entries Nos. 1796 and 1808 and whereas had directed departmental inquiry to be conducted against the accused No.7. At the same time, it would be relevant to note here that even the Collector while taking the certification of entries in suo moto revision did not think it fit to recommend that a criminal complaint be registered with regard to the incident in question against the petitioners. Law with regard to quashing of complaint has been settled by the Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal reported in 1992 Suppl. 1 SCC 335, more particularly at Para 102. The same is quoted hereinbelow : “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Ch. XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Art. 226 or the inherent powers under sec. The same is quoted hereinbelow : “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Ch. XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Art. 226 or the inherent powers under sec. 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under sec. 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of sec. 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under sec. 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 22. In the instance case, this Court is of the opinion that the complaint is preferred maliciously by the complainant as has been stated at illustration No.7 in the case of Bhajanlal (supra). The complainant who claims to be erstwhile owner of the land is aggrieved by the fact that in the year 1953, the land belong to his family had been illegally usurped. That no proceeding appears to have been initiated by the complainant and his family members in that regard from 1953 onwards. The complainant in the year 2014 as such had no interest in the property in question as well as the transaction in question. No person other than the complainant had complained about the transaction in question and whereas it appears that even before the revenue authorities the application of the complainant had resulted in order dated 21.03.2014 passed by the Collector referred to hereinabove. Ideally the complainant should have stopped at that, more particularly when the Collector while quashing and setting aside the entries in question and also recommending departmental inquiry against the officer of the revenue department did not think it proper to recommend initiation of criminal case with regard to the transaction in question. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present impugned complaint is maliciously instituted at the instance of the complainant who has an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused on account of personal grudge held by the complainant. 23. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present impugned complaint is maliciously instituted at the instance of the complainant who has an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused on account of personal grudge held by the complainant. 23. For the reasons, findings and conclusions arrived at hereinabove, the present petitions succeed. The impugned complaint being M. Case No. 01 of 2014 registered with the Vagadod Police Station, District Patan and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.