Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dipak Misra, C.J.I. and A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud

JUDGMENT

Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J

1. Leave granted.

2. By its judgment dated 25 November 2016, the High Court of Gujarat dismissed an application Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Appellants sought the quashing of a First Information Report registered against them on 18 June 2016 with the City 'C' Division Police Station, District Jamnagar, Gujarat for offences punishable Under Sections 384, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 506(2) of the Penal Code. The second Respondent is the complainant.

3. In his complaint dated 18 June 2016, the second Respondent stated that certain land admeasuring 17 vigha comprised in survey 1408 at Panakhan Gokulnagar in Jamnagar city was his ancestral agricultural land. The land was converted to non-agricultural use on 21 June 1995 and 5 January 2000 pursuant to orders of the District Collector. One hundred and three plots were carved out of the land. Amongst them, plots 45 to 56 admeasuring 32,696 sq.ft. were in the joint names of six brothers and a sister (represented by the complainant). According to the complainant, a broker by the name of Bachhubhai Veljibhai Nanda approached him with Parbatbhai Ahir, the first Appellant stating that he desired to purchase the land. On the next day, the first Appellant approached the complainant with his partner Hasmukhbhai Patel (the third Appellant) to purchase the land. The complainant was requested to provide a photocopy of the lay out plan of the plot, which he did. On the following day the first Appellant is alleged to have gone to the house of the complainant with the second and the third Appellants at which point in time, parties agreed that the land would be sold at the rate of Rs. 4,221 per sq.ft. and a deal was struck for a consideration of Rs. 1,13,58,711/- out of which an amount of Rs. 11 lakhs was given in cash to the complainant for plot No. 56. The complainant's case is that while the discussion was on, he was requested by the second and the third Appellants that since the power of attorney was old and unreadable all the plot holders should give their passport size photographs. Accordingly, a document was reduced to writing by which it was agreed that the sale transaction for plot No. 56 would be completed within two months against full payment. According to the complainant, when he demanded the remaining payment for the plot from the second and third Appellants, the second Appellant provided him seven cheques each in the amount of Rs. 6 lakhs in the name of the six brothers (one brother being given two cheques). Thereafter when the complainant followed up for the payment of th........