The court's decision established the principle that the exercise of inherent powers under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be used to quash criminal proceedings when the allegations do not disclose any cognizable offence against the accused.

JUDGMENT

1. Learned counsel for the applicants seeks leave to amend the application so as to incorporate the Charge Sheet Number as well as Case Number and the details of the Court before which the same is pending. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

2. With the consent of learned counsel for rival parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.

3. By this application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants have sought to quash the First Information Report bearing Crime No.239/2020, registered at City Police Station, Udgir, District Latur and the consequential Charge Sheet and R.C.C. No.265/2022, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Udgir, District Latur for the offence punishable under Ss. 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 167 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The aforesaid crime was registered pursuant to the First Information Report lodged by the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 has alleged that, the applicants herein had forged and fabricated revenue entries by cancelling Mutation Entry No.1212 and effecting Mutation Entry No.2919 in favour of the deceased Bakulabai.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, the applicants herein have only implemented the order of the SubDivisional Officer, which was finally confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that, in view of the subsequent order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer pursuant to the application filed by the respondent No.2, the applicants herein cancelled the earlier Mutation Entry No.2919, and once again effected Mutation Entry No.2993 in favour of the respondent No.2 herein. He submits that, the applicants have only complied with the order of the authorities and had only performed their official duty and there is absolutely no material on record to indicate that they were in any way involved in either forging the documents or committing an offence of cheating as alleged.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants states that, the daughter and son-in-law of the respondent No.2 are working in Police Department and that the respondent No.2 has misused the police machinery by filing false complaint and ensuring that the applicants were arrested on the same day that the First Information Report was lodged.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants states that the applicant No.1 has retired and sanction to prosecute the applicant No.2 has been rejected. He has placed on record the copy of order dtd. 27/7/2022 rejecting sanction to prosecute the applicant No.2. The learned counsel for the applicants states that the entire proceedings are manifestly attended by malafides and are malicious. He submits that, the First Information Report as well as the other material on record, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose commission of cognizable offence, and that continuance of criminal proceedings against the applicants, who are public servants, is sheer abuse of process of the Court.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that, the applicants have cancelled the Mutation Entry No.1212 and effected Mutation Entry No.2919 in favour of Bakulabai though the legal representatives of Bakulabai had not challenged the decree. He submits that, the applicants are involved in forging and fabricating the records in collusion with co-accused. He further submits that, the respondent No.2 was constrained to file the private complaint because the police authorities had not taken any action against the applicants despite the complaint lodged by him on 4/8/2019. He concedes that the respondent No.2 has filed a second Report on 4/12/2020 during the pendency of the criminal complaint before the learned Magistrate. He submits that such technicalities cannot be looked into at this stage since the material on record prima facie shows involvement of the applicant in commission of the crime. He contends that this is not a case which war