Holding

The FIR and all consequent criminal proceedings are quashed as the allegations do not meet the statutory elements of the charged offences and the dispute is purely civil.

Summary

The petitioners filed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash FIR No. 1 of 2014, which alleged offences under various IPC sections relating to alleged forgery and fraud in the partition of ancestral joint family property. The dispute originated from a partition deed executed in 2002 and a revenue notice dated 04‑07‑2003, which the complainant later claimed bore a forged signature of her deceased sister. The petitioners argued that the matter was a civil inheritance dispute, that forensic analysis confirmed the complainant’s own signature on the notice, and that the 11‑year delay was intended to pressure a civil settlement. The State and the de facto complainant contended that the presence of a dead sister’s signature indicated forgery, establishing a prima facie case for criminal prosecution. The Court examined the essential ingredients of the invoked IPC sections and found none were satisfied, noting the complainant’s participation negated mens rea and that the alleged offences were essentially civil in nature. Applying the Bhajan Lal and Kesarwani tests, the Court held that proceeding with a criminal trial would be an abuse of process and consequently quashed the FIR and all related criminal proceedings.

Issues considered

The applicability of Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR arising from a civil property dispute
Whether the essential elements of IPC sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 114 and 34 are satisfied
Whether the alleged forged signature on the Section 135D revenue notice establishes criminal intent
Whether the 11‑year delay in filing the complaint justifies criminal prosecution

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 156, s. 210, s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 114, s. 120, s. 166, s. 167, s. 171, s. 181, s. 182, s. 191, s. 192, s. 193, s. 196, s. 199, s. 200, s. 34, s. 406, s. 420, s. 465, s. 467, s. 468, s. 471

Subjects

Section 482 CrPCquash FIRproperty disputejoint family propertyforgerycivil vs criminal jurisdictioninheritancesignature verificationlimitation periodIndian Penal Code

Judgment

R/CR.MA/11732/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET
ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 11732 of 2014

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
================================================
CHIMIBEN WD/O RAMJIBHAI SOMABHAI (Petition abated qua
applicant no. 1) & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
================================================
Appearance:
ABATED for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RR MARSHALL, SR ADVOCATE with MR AB
MUNSHI(1238) for the Applicant(s) No. 2,3,4,5,6,7
MR KV SHELAT(834) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

Date : 06/07/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

A] INTRODUCTION:

1. This application under Section 482 of Criminal

Page 1 of 16
R/CR.MA/11732/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026

Procedure Code, 1973 (the Code) is filed by the applicants
praying to quash the FIR being C.R. M.Case No. 1 of 2014,
lodged before Dumas Police Station, Dist.: Surat City for the
offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468,
471, 120B, 114 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

2. The procedural matrix indicates that de facto
complainant (respondent No. 3) had preferred Criminal
Misc. Application No. 437 of 2013 before the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Surat. By an order dated 25.07.2014, the
learned Magistrate directed that the complaint be registered
as an offence and investigated under Section 156(3) of the
Code. This directive subsequently crystallized into the
registration of the impugned FIR. The dispute centers
around a parcel of joint family ancestral property following
the demise of the complainant's father, who passed away
intestate on 25..06.1981.

B] GRAVAMEN OF THE COMPLAINT:

3. Father of the de facto complainant expired intestate on
25.06.1981 and the applicant Nos. 2 to 6, who are close
relatives, though de facto complainant did not relinquish any
right in the joint family property and though did not execute
any document to that effect, in connivance with each other
and the other co-accused, by creating a forged Partition Deed

Page 2 of 16
R/CR.MA/11732/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026

dated 10.12.2002 and getting notarized the same on
20.12.2002 and based thereon, sold the joint family property.
Further, it is also alleged that though neither the de facto
complainant nor her sisters ever served, signed or thumbed
Section 135D Notice, and that, one of the sisters namely
Bebiben was already expired on 25.12.2002, the said Notice,
which is dated 04.07.2003, bears her signature also and thus,
the applicant Nos. 2 to 6 grabbed her property by creating
forged and fabricated Partition Deed, for which, the FIR in
question came to be filed.

C] SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CONTESTING
PARTIES:

4. Heard, Mr. R. R. Marshall, Senior Counsel, assisted by
learned advocate Mr. A. B. Munshi, for the applicants,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Rohan Shah for the
respondent No. 1 – State and learned advocate Mr. K. V.
Shelat for the respondent No. 3 - de facto complainant, at
length.

I) SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANTS:

4.1 Mr. R. R. Marshall, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the applicants, raised the following contentions:

4.1.1 Civil Dispute Cloaked as Criminal: The dispute

Page 3 of 16
R/CR.MA/11732/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026

is purely civil, involving the partitioning and
devolution of ancestral joint family property. It has
been artificially colored with criminal allegations to
bypass the law of limitation.

4.1.2 Scientific Refutation of Forgery: The
foundational allegation that the applicants forged the
complainant’s signature on the Notice under Section
135D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, stands
entirely demolished by the Forensic Science Laboratory
(FSL) report. The independent expert evaluation
confirms the signature belongs to the complainant.

4.1.3 Unconscionable Delay and Afterthought: The
partition and subsequent sale of the property took
place way back in the year 2002. The criminal
machinery was motioned for the first time in 2013,
representing an unexplained and exorbitant delay of 11
years, driven purely by the commercial appreciation of
the land.

4.1.4 Judicial Consistency and Parity: Special Civil
Suit No. 447 of 2012 and parallel RTS revenue
proceedings are pending before competent civil
forums. Crucially, the coordinate Bench, vide judgment
and order dated 30.06.2023 passed in Criminal Misc.

Page 4 of 16
R/CR.MA/11732/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026

Application No. 12734 of 2014 quashed the FIR
impugned herein qua original accused No. 10 namely
Keyush Jitendrabhai Sadiwala, who is an Advocate,
allegedly, identified the signatories of the Partition
Deed dated 20.12.2002. Moreover, an FIR being C.R.
No. I-11/2014 was filed before Dumas Police Station,
Surat City for the offences punishable under Sections
465, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 166, 167, 171, 181, 182, 191, 192,
193, 196, 199 and 200 of the IPC relating to some parts
of the property in question by the daughter of
applicant No. 1 namely Bhanuben against some of the
applicants herein and the coordinate Bench, by
judgment and order dated 18.03.2026 passed in
Criminal Misc. Application No. 4921 of 2014 quashed
the said FIR. Accordingly, it is stated that when
present FIR qua original accused No. 10 and one
another complaint, as referred to herein above, qua
some parts of the subject property herein which was
filed against some of the applicants herein, is already
quashed by the coordinate Bench of this Court only,
the FIR impugned herein, also required to be quashed.

II. SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENTS – STATE AS
WELL AS THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

4.2 Mr. Rohan Shah, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the State and Mr. K. V. Shelat,

Page 5 of 16
R/CR.MA/11732/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026

learned advocate appearing for the de facto complainant,
submitted the following:

4.2.1 Presence of Factual Anomalies: The
investigation reveals a serious irregularity in the public
records. The statutory revenue Notice under Section
135D of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code is dated
04.07.2003, yet it bears the signature of a sister,
Bebiben, who had admittedly passed away on
25.12.2002.

4.2.2 Denial of Relinquishment: The de facto
complainant never executed any relinquishment deed
or Partition Deed in favor of the applicants, nor did she
sign any such documents nor voluntarily did give up
her undivided share in the estate of her late father.

4.2.3 Systemic Fraud: The applicants, more
particularly, applicant Nos. 2 to 6, being close relatives,
acted in deep-seated connivance with one another to
grab the joint family property by creating false,
backdated documents, thereby defrauding the female
heirs.

4.2.4 The Dead Sister’s Signature as Proof: The fact
that a Section 135D revenue Notice was executed with

Page 6 of 16
R/CR.MA/11732/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026

the signature of a deceased sister proves that the
applicants created fraudulent records. The
complainant was entirely unaware of these
transactions, meaning the delay in filing the complaint
is fully justified.

4.2.5 Triable Issues: The presence of a dead person's
signature on a statutory public document provides
prima facie evidence of forgery and conspiracy, which
can only be verified through a full-fledged trial where
evidence can be tested under cross-examination.

4.2.6 Exercise of Power Sparingly: It was urged that
since the allegations disclose a prima facie case of
fabricated paperwork, this Court should exercise
restraint and decline to stifle the investigative process
at this preliminary stage.

D] REASONING AND SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS:

5. The Societal Context: Coparcenary Rights and Real
Estate Pressures:

5.1 To understand the true nature of this dispute, the
Court must look at the broader social and economic
realities behind family property litigation. Over the
past few decades, Indian property jurisprudence has

Page 7 of 16
R/CR.MA/11732/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026

undergone a significant transformation, particularly
with the progressive recognition of a married
daughter's equal coparcenary rights in ancestral
estates. Concurrently, urban centers like Surat have
experienced an unprecedented boom in real estate
values. While the expansion of gender-equal property
rights is a monumental legal milestone, it has
inadvertently triggered a wave of retrospective
litigation. Family property arrangements, oral
partitions, and relinquishment made in good faith
decades ago are now frequently reopened when land
values multiply. When these claims are barred by the
strict limitation laws of civil Courts, frustrated litigants
often turn to the criminal justice system. By adding a
criminal element to a stale inheritance dispute, they
seek to bypass the civil law of limitation and use the
threat of prosecution as a leverage mechanism to
extract financial settlements. When a criminal
complaint is filed after a massive delay, the Court must
look past the emotional narrative and verify whether
the specific statutory elements of the alleged offences
are actually met.

6. Preliminary contention of the applicants:

6.1 Dealing preliminary contention of the learned

Page 8 of 16
R/CR.MA/11732/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026

senior advocate for the applicants first that once
learned Magistrate orders inquiry under Section 210 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (the Code) and
thereafter, passing of order to register the FIR, which is
impugned herein, is not permissible in law, inasmuch
as, it amounts to taking cognizance of the case, is not
tenable for the reason that indisputably, the de facto
complainant, had already approached the
Commissioner of Police prior in point of time and that,
it was also directed to submit a report and thereafter,
such an order was passed, which, in no way, can be
said to be taking cognizance of the offence. Thus, the
said contention is hereby rejected.

7. Section 135D Notice Anomaly and Complainant's
Conduct:

7.1 The de facto complainant bases her case of
criminal conspiracy on the Section 135D Notice dated
04.07.2003, which contains the signature of her
deceased sister, Bebiben as well as denial of her own
signature. While the signature of a deceased
individual on a statutory Notice is an administrative
irregularity, a logical and legal analysis reveals that
this fact does not support the criminal charges against
the applicants. The investigation reveals a striking
contradiction in the complainant's behavior that

Page 9 of 16
R/CR.MA/11732/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026

undermines the credibility of her case:

8. The de facto complainant was herself a joint
signatory to that very same Section 135D Notice in July
2003:

8.1 As Bebiben’s real sister, the complainant knew
that her sister had passed away seven months prior.
Despite this direct knowledge, she signed the Notice
alongside her sister’s name and allowed the revenue
authorities to finalize the mutation entry without a
single objection.

8.2 This active participation completely eliminates
the element of mens rea (guilty intent) required for a
criminal offence. If the applicants had engineered a
secret fraud to keep the complainant in the dark, she
would not have been actively signing the mutation
papers alongside them. Her signature on both the 2002
Relinquishment/Partition Deed and the 2003 revenue
Notice (scientifically verified by the FSL) shows she
was fully aware of the family arrangement. Moreover,
FSL report also indicates that none of the applicant
Nos. 2 to 6 herein had signed Section 135D Notice.

8.3 Her 11 years’ silence indicates that the allegation
regarding her deceased sister's signature is a strategic

Page 10 of 16
R/CR.MA/11732/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026

afterthought, brought forward a decade later to inject
fraud into a valid transaction. If any wrong was
committed regarding Bebiben’s signature, it was a
matter for Bebiben’s direct heirs or a procedural
violation for the revenue authority and it does not give
the complainant a basis to revive her own expired civil
claims. Even otherwise, revenue entries are only for
fiscal purpose and the claim of ownership cannot be
decided based on revenue entries.

9. Quashing of present FIR and one another FIR by the
coordinate Bench qua some of the accused / applicants:

9.1 The coordinate Bench, vide judgment and order
dated 30.06.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Application
No. 12734 of 2014 quashed the impugned FIR qua
original accused No. 10. Moreover, while record
reveals that no other sister challenged the said
transaction, it is submitted that an FIR being C.R. No. I-
11/2014 was filed before Dumas Police Station, Surat
City for the offences punishable under Sections 465,
467, 468, 471, 120B, 166, 167, 171, 181, 182, 191, 192, 193,
196, 199 and 200 of the IPC relating to some parts of the
property in question by the daughter of applicant No.
1 - Bhanuben against some of the applicants herein and
the coordinate Bench, by judgment and order dated
18.03.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.

Page 11 of 16
R/CR.MA/11732/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026

4921 of 2014 quashed the said FIR. Moreover, Special
Civil Suit No. 447 of 2012 and parallel RTS revenue
proceedings are pending before competent civil
forums.

E] STATUTORY DECONSTRUCTION OF THE INVOKED
IPC SECTIONS:

10. To determine if the criminal prosecution can legally
continue, it must be examined whether the essential
ingredients of each section invoked in the FIR are satisfied:

10.1 Section 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust): The
primary requirement for an offence under Section
405/406 is the "entrustment" of property or control
over it, followed by a dishonest misappropriation or
conversion by the accused for their own use. In a
dispute over ancestral property among co-sharers
where a Relinquishment Deed has been executed, there
is no entrustment. Because the FSL report confirms the
complainant signed the 135D Notice, there is no
dishonest misappropriation. The complainant has
never raised dispute till 2013 that her sister has not
signed 135D Notice but for the first time by way of the
complaint has disputed even her signature in Deed as
well as 135D Notice. The dispute involves a
determination of civil shares, which does not attract

Page 12 of 16
R/CR.MA/11732/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026

Section 406.

10.2 Section 420 (Cheating and Dishonestly
Inducing Delivery of Property): Under Section
415/420, the prosecution must show that the accused
practiced deception from the very inception of the
transaction, fraudulently inducing the victim to part
with property. The FSL report confirms the
complainant signed the 135D Notice in year 2003. The
non signing of Deed is also raised first time in 2013 and
not even while signing the 135D Notice in 2003. Since
she was a willing participant in these transactions,
there is no evidence of deception or fraudulent
inducement, and Section 420 is not attracted.

10.3 Sections 465 & 467 (Forgery and Forgery of a
Valuable Security): These sections require the
creation of a "false document" as defined under Section
464, made with the intent to cause damage, support a
false claim, or commit fraud. The primary title-shifting
document i.e. the 2002 Relinquishment Deed is claimed
to be not signed by her and her sisters more
particularly when none of the sister in their life time
has raised such dispute. The subsequent Section 135D
Notice is an administrative document for tax mutation
purposes, not a valuable security. Because the

Page 13 of 16
R/CR.MA/11732/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026

complainant signed the Notice herself, it cannot be
argued that a false document was created to deceive
her.

10.4 Section 468 (Forgery for Purpose of Cheating):
This offence requires a forgery to be committed with
the specific intent to cheat. Since the primary
document transferring the property is genuine and the
complainant was a signatory to the subsequent
revenue Notice, the charge of forgery fails, and Section
468 cannot stand.

10.5 Section 471 (Using as Genuine a Forged
Document): This section punishes someone who
fraudulently uses a forged document as genuine,
knowing it to be fake. Since the complainant was a co-
signatory to the Section 135D Notice in 2003 and
remained silent for 11 years, she cannot claim the
applicants used the document to deceive her.

10.6 Sections 120B, 114, and 34 (Criminal
Conspiracy, Abettor Present, and Common
Intention): These sections establish joint liability and
inchoate offences. They do not constitute independent
substantive crimes but apply when individuals act
together to commit an offence. Since the primary

Page 14 of 16
R/CR.MA/11732/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026

charges of cheating, breach of trust, and forgery lack
their essential statutory ingredients, these vicarious
liability sections have no legal basis to stand on.

F] ULTIMATE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION:

11. When filtered through the principles of State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [AIR 1992 SC 604] and the four-step
framework from Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of
Uttar Pradesh [2025 INSC 1095], this case fails to justify a
criminal trial:

11.1 The FSL report confirming the complainant's
signature on the 135D Notice of year 2003 constitute
clear scientific evidence.

11.2 This material directly refutes the allegations of
fraud and forgery in the FIR.

11.3 The prosecution cannot dispute the
complainant's long standing signature and her 11-year
silence.

11.4 Allowing this trial to proceed would be a clear
abuse of the Court process, permitting a civil
inheritance dispute over appreciated land values to be

Page 15 of 16
R/CR.MA/11732/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026

fought in a criminal Court.

11.5 Not challenging the arrangement deed
/relinquishment deed even when her sister was alive
also creates doubt regarding the authenticity of the
FIR.

11.6 Forcing the parties to undergo a full-fledged
criminal trial when the essential elements of the
alleged offences are entirely missing would be an
exercise in futility. The dispute is purely civil, and
using criminal proceedings as a pressure tactic to force
commercial negotiations cannot be permitted.

12. Consequently, this application succeeds and is hereby
allowed. The First Information Report registered as C.R. M.Case
No. 1 of 2014 before the Dumas Police Station, District Surat City,
along with all consequential criminal proceedings arising from it,
is quashed and set aside qua the present applicants only.

12.1 Rule is made absolute in the aforementioned terms. Direct
service is permitted.

[ P. M. Raval, J. ]
hiren/10tss6726+

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: HIREN VIRENDRABHAI MER(HC00351), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 06/07/2026 12:20:53

Page 16 of 16