Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 157 (GUJ)

Chintan Amrabhai Bharwad v. State Of Gujarat

2026-03-06

M.R.MENGDEY

body2026
JUDGMENT : M. R. MENGDEY, J. 1. By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief: “(A) Be pleased to Quash and set aside the order dated 13.02.2026 passed by 9th Addi. Sessions Judge Ahmedabad rural in Criminal Revision Appli. No. 96 of 2025 and order dated 07.02.2025 passed by the 2nd Additional Senior civil Judge, Sanand below the Application seeking discharge @ Exh. 21 in connection with Criminal case No. 2706 of 2021in the interest of justice; (B) Be Pleased to Discharge the accused Chintan Amrabhai Bharwad in the captioned criminal case No. 2706 of 2021 pending before 2th Additional senior civil judge sanad, Ahmedabad District from the charges levelled against him in the interst of justice. (C) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to grant interim/ad-interim relief in terms of para. 9(A) and/or 9(B) and stay further proceeding of trial during pendency of this petition in the captioned criminal case No. 2706 of 2021 pending before 2th Additional senior civil judge sanad, Ahmedabad District from the charges levelled against him in the interst of justice. (D) Such other and further relief/s which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper be granted in the facts and circumstances of present case and in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of the petition are such that the FIR being CR No.11192011200868 of 2020 came to be registered with the Bopal Police Station on 09.10.2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and the other accused. The investigating agency, after conclusion of the investigation into the FIR, submitted charge- sheet before the learned Trial Court. Thereafter, the petitioner herein had preferred an application by exhibit-21 in Criminal Case No.2706 of 2021 under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Trial Court dismissed the said application vide order dated 07.02.2025. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant approached the learned Sessions Court by filing the Criminal Revision Application No.96/2025. The learned Sessions Court dismissed the revision application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 13.02.2026. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with both the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant approached the learned Sessions Court by filing the Criminal Revision Application No.96/2025. The learned Sessions Court dismissed the revision application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 13.02.2026. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with both the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition. 3. Heard learned advocate Shri. P. R. Abhichandani appearing for the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner herein is the bonafide purchaser of the parcels of the land in question. There is nothing on record to indicate that any forgery had been committed by the petitioner in the present offence. He further submitted that as per the FIR, the incident alleged in the FIR has taken place on 20.07.2018, whereas the FIR came to be lodged on 09.10.2020. The delay caused in lodging the FIR has not been explained by the first informant in the FIR. He further submitted that it was the co-accused, namely Dilipbhai Somabhai Nayi, who had forged the document in question and had executed a sale deed in favor of the petitioner. The said co- accused, namely Dilipbhai Somabhai Nayi had affirmed an affidavit on 29.08.2023, wherein it is stated that the Agreement to Sale dated 20.08.2018 executed in favor of the petitioner as well as the Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 27.11.2019 were prepared by him and he had also received the money of consideration from the petitioner. The petitioner herein was not present at the time of execution of any of the documents which are allegedly forged. Thus, the petitioner herein had no motive whatsoever for committing the present offense. The said co- accused, namely Dilipbhai Somabhai Nayi expired few days after affirming the aforesaid affidavit. Thus, he had remorsed for having committed the offense in question, since he was facing the death. Though, the said affidavit is not forming part of the charge-sheet. The said co-accused namely Dilipbhai Somabhai Nayi had forwarded the copies of the affidavit to the petitioner, the first informant, the investigation officer as well as to the learned Trial Court. On the basis of the said affidavit, the petitioner in had submitted an application for further investigation which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court, against which, the applicant has preferred a revision application before the learned Sessions Court which is pending consideration. On the basis of the said affidavit, the petitioner in had submitted an application for further investigation which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court, against which, the applicant has preferred a revision application before the learned Sessions Court which is pending consideration. He submitted that the genuineness of the affidavit in question is required to be asserted and therefore, the further investigation into the said affidavit is necessary which would make the position very clear. The revision application filed against the order of the learned Trial Court, rejecting the application for further investigation, is pending at this stage of judgment and the petitioner is hopeful that the said revision application would be allowed and in that eventuality when the genuineness of the affidavit is examined and if the same is found to be genuine, that would absolve the petitioner of the criminal liability and in that eventuality, if interim relief is not granted in favor of the petitioner and the trial is allowed to proceed further, the same will result into an irreparable loss and prejudice to the petitioner. He further submitted that though, the aspect of the aforesaid affidavit was pressed into service by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court as well as before the learned Sessions Court, the same has not been taken into consideration by both the Courts while passing the orders impugned in the present petition. He also submitted that civil litigations are also going on between the parties as regards the very same parcel of land. He therefore submitted to allow the present petition and quash and set aside the orders impugned in the petition. 4. Learned APP Shri. H. K. Patel appearing for the respondent state has opposed the present petition contending that the petitioner herein is the direct beneficiary in the present offense. The signature and the thumb impression of the first informant and his mother respectively were forged to prepare the documents of Agreement to Sale and an Irrevocable Power of Attorney and on the basis of the said Irrevocable Power of Attorney, sale-deed came to be executed in favor of the petitioner. The FSL report indicates that the signatures and the thumb impression on the documents in question Signatures did not belong to the first informant and his mother. The FSL report indicates that the signatures and the thumb impression on the documents in question Signatures did not belong to the first informant and his mother. So far as the aspect of the affidavit of the co-accused Dilipbhai Somabhai Nayi is concerned, the same cannot be looked into at this stage. The scope for consideration while deciding the application for discharge is very limited. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present petition. 5. Heard learned advocates for the parties. It is the case of prosecution that the petitioner and his mother were holding several parcels of land. On 16.03.2020, they had executed sale- deed in favor of one Satish Manubhai Patel and a revenue entry in that regard bearing No.6236 was registered. The petitioner herein had submitted an objection against the said revenue entry. Upon inquiry, it was noted that on 20.07.2018, an Agreement to Sale was executed in favor of the petitioner herein with the signature and the thumb impression of the first informant and his mother respectively. Vide aforesaid Agreement to Sale, the petitioner had agreed to purchase the land for consideration of Rs.41 lakhs out of which, Rs.31 lakhs had been shown to have been pain in cash. Thereafter, on 27.11.2019, an Irrevocable Power of Attorney was purportedly executed by the first informant and his mother in favor of co-accused namely Dilipbhai Somabhai Nayi, who on the basis of the said Power of Attorney had executed a Sale-deed in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner happens to be the direct beneficiary in the present offense. The material available on record indicates that the Agreement to Sale dated 28.07.2018 as well as the Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 27.11.2019 contained the signatures and thumb impressions of the first informant and his mother respectively. The documents in question were sent for examination to the FSL and the report of the FSL indicates that the signatures and the thumb depressions purportedly of the first informant and his mother respectively did not actually belonged to them. Thus, the signatures and the thumb impressions in question were forged on the documents in question. 6. Though, as per the Agreement to Sale, the petitioner had agreed to purchase the land for consideration of Rs.41 lakhs out of which Rs.31 lakhs had been paid by him in cash, there is nothing on record to indicate about exchange of any money. 6. Though, as per the Agreement to Sale, the petitioner had agreed to purchase the land for consideration of Rs.41 lakhs out of which Rs.31 lakhs had been paid by him in cash, there is nothing on record to indicate about exchange of any money. Therefore, the transaction of Agreement to Sale was nothing but a sham arrangement for the purpose of usurping the land of the first informant. 7. The material available on record also indicates that the Power of Attorney dated 27.11.2019 was notarized by notary Altaf Hussein N. Malik who is also arraigned as an accused in the FIR. However, the said Power of Attorney was not entered into the notary register of the said co-accused. 8. While considering an application filed by the accused for discharge, what is required to be considered is as to whether there is sufficient material to prosecute an accused for the offence in question. The Court is not required to satisfy itself as to whether the material against the accused is sufficient to convict him for the offence or not. The material available against the petitioner, as discussed herein above, makes out a strong prima-facie case against the petitioner for prosecuting him for the alleged offence and therefore, the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Sessions Court do not appear to have committed any offence in passing the orders impugned in the petition. 9. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has heavily relied upon the affidavit of the co-accused namely Dilipbhai Somabhai Nayi dated 29.08.2023. In the said affidavit, it has been mentioned that the documents dated 20.08.2018 and 27.11.2019 were prepared by him and the amount of consideration was also received by him from the petitioner. This affidavit seeks to exonerate the petitioner of criminal liability. It is pertinent to note that Dilipbhai Somabhai Nayi, the author of the affidavit, was a co-accused in the present offence and as per the charge-sheet, he was arrested by the Investigation Officer on 08.12.2020 and thereafter was sent to judicial custody. This affidavit seeks to exonerate the petitioner of criminal liability. It is pertinent to note that Dilipbhai Somabhai Nayi, the author of the affidavit, was a co-accused in the present offence and as per the charge-sheet, he was arrested by the Investigation Officer on 08.12.2020 and thereafter was sent to judicial custody. There is nothing on record to suggest that he had stated anything of this sort which has been stated by him in the affidavit in question before the police authorities and it is only on 29.08.2023, that is after a period of almost three years from the date of his arrest, that he had thought it fit to author the said affidavit. Therefore, the genuineness of the contents of the affidavit is under the cover. Moreover, the investigating agency had filed charges against the petitioner and the other co-accused on 27.04.2021, whereas the application for discharge was filed by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court on 07.10.2023. Therefore, the affidavit of Dilipbhai Nayi is nothing but a tool to enable the petitioner to file an application for discharge. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the affidavit in question exonerates the petitioner does not inspire any confidence. 10. Having regard to these aspects, the petition, being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed.