JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of F.I.R. in Pandua P.S. Case No. 411/19 dated 24.12.2019 under Section 467/468/420 of Indian Penal Code (G.R. No. 2210 of 2019).

2. The petitioners case is that the Complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 Basudeb Guin lodged a complaint before the Officer-in-Charge, Pandua Police Station on 06.12.2019 that his father Motilal Guin purchased a piece of land on 13.02.2015 vide Registered Purchase Deed No. 361/15. The land is situated at Mouza – Prasadpur, J.L. No. 85, Hal Dag No. 492.

3. That his father’s name was recorded in the record of right and after demise of his father, the petitioner’s name has been recorded in the record of right.

4. The Complainant’s father also filed a suit for eviction against the Petitioners being Title Suit No. 46 of 2018 before the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Hooghly Sadar and the said suit is still pending.

5. Petitioners herein filed a written objection in Title Suit No. 46 of 2018 wherein they have stated that Petitioners No. 1 & 2 are the owners of the property and they have purchased the land from Monoj Mohan Basu and Saroj Mohan Basu respectively by a Registered Sale Deed being No. 12700 dated 21.12.2017.

6. It is the further case of the complainant that it appears from the records that Saroj Mohan Basu died on 04.03.1994 i.e. before selling of the property which the petitioners allegedly purchased from Monoj Mohan Basu and Saroj Mohan Basu respectively.

7. Petitioner No. 2 signed as a witness in the said sale deed.

8. The Complainant thus lodged a complaint on 06.12.2019 against the Petitioners before the Officer-in-Charge, Pandua Police Station and on the basis of the said complaint, the Officer-in-Charge, Pandua Police Station started a case being Pandua P.S. Case No. 411/19 dated 24.12.2019 under Section 467/468/420 of Indian Penal Code.

9. The petitioners state that the petitioners land and building and Complainant’s land is different although it is situated in the same Mouza.

10. The Petitioners state that since the Petitioners No. 1 and 2 belong to the tribal community and they purchased the land through Registered Sale Deed, the Complainant is trying to grab the said property, though it is not the Complainant’s land. The Complainant’s land is situated just adjacent to the Petitioners land.

11. The petitioners state that the Complainant never purchased any land from Monoj Mohan Basu and Saroj Mohan Basu.

12. The petitioners further state that the legal heirs of Monoj Mohan Basu and Saroj Mohan Basu have not filed any complaint against the petitioners.

13. Mr. P.K. Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Complainant is a third party and he has no right to file a false complaint against the Petitioners and the Police authority started a case without going into the merits of the case which is baseless and wholly without jurisdiction.

14. That the alleged complaint is otherwise bad and false, and should be thus set aside.

15. Mr. Keshab Chandra Das, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the complainant is the owner of the disputed land and an eviction suit has been filed against the petitioners by him. It is further submitted that the petitioners have forged the deed as the deed was executed on 21.12.2017 by two persons namely Manoj Mohan Basu and Saroj Mohan Basu.

16. But Copy of the Death certificate in the case diary shows that Saroj Mohan Basu expired on 04.03.1994.

17. Though the dispute between the parties prima facie is civil in nature, the execution of the deed in respect of the property in dispute is challenged, as allegedly one of the Vendors expired 23 years prior to the execution of the deed.

18. The petitioners herein admittedly belong to the Scheduled Tribe Community.

19. The Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma vs. The State of Uttarakhand & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 707 of 2020, on November 5, 2020, held:-

“8. Against the backdrop of these fact