S.P.GARG, J.

1. Instant revision petitions have been preferred by the petitioners to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 19.05.2007 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby they were ordered to be charged for commission of offences under Sections 420/468/471/120B IPC. The petitions are contested by the respondents. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file.

2. At the outset, it may be mentioned that during arguments, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, stated that petitioners have opted not to challenge the impugned order under Section 471 IPC. Arguments were restricted / confined to challenge the correctness of the charges under Sections 420/468/120B IPC. Learned Senior Counsel would urge that ingredient of Sections 415 IPC and 468 IPC are not attracted in the instant case. There was no “representation” made by the petitioners to respondents No.2 & 3 and no “property” whatsoever was delivered by them pursuant to that. Merely because of alleged forgery of the documents i.e. Retirement Deed and Receipts, it cannot be inferred that the petitioners were liable for committing offences under Sections 420/468 IPC too. The Retirement Deed dated 16.08.1990 came into existence after all the brothers agreed to divide their properties in a family settlement. Subsequently, for ulterior motives, the respondents backed out of the settlement and initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioners though civil dispute between the parties was pending before this Court. Learned counsel for Madan Kukreja urged that he had nothing to do with the partnership-firm after 16.08.1990. He is victim of circumstances. He urged that the Retirement Deed dated 16.08.1990 was executed by all the partners pursuant to family settlement arrived at among them. Reliance was placed on “Devendra and ors vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.”, 2009 (7) SCC 495 and “Fiza Developers and Inter-Trade Pvt. Ltd. vs. AMCI (India) Pvt. Ltd. and anr.” 2009 (17) SCC 796.

3. Refuting the contentions, learned Senior Counsel for respondents No.2 & 3 urged that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. At the stage of consideration of charge, the Court is not expected to go deep into probative value of material on record, it has to find out whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused. By forging Retirement Deed and Receipts purporting to have paid Rs. 50,000/-each to all other partners in lieu of their claim in the partnership-firm pursuant to conspiracy hatched by them, they attempted to grab the entire properties to the detriment of the respondents. Learned Senior Counsel further urged that a conspiracy was hatched by both the petitioners in forging Retirement Deed and Receipts. The receipts are also in the handwriting of the petitioner Madan Kukreja. Both the petitioners were hand in glove.

4. The petitioners and the respondents No.2 & 3 are brothers. They were running business in partnership in the name of M/s. D.R.Kukreja & Co. This firm was first constituted on 24.06.1969. The partnership firm was reconstituted in the name of M/S. D.R.Kukreja & Co. vide a partnership deed dated 10.07.1984 comprising of partners – Sunder Kukreja, Ram Chander Kukreja (since deceased), Raj Kumar Kukreja, Madan Kukreja and Mohan Kukreja. All the partners had equal share in the profit and loss of the firm to the extent of 20% each.

5. Sunder Kukreja in his complaint (Ex.PW-4/A) lodged on 23.11.1993 informed the police that on 03.06.1992, when he along with his brothers – Ram Chander Kukreja and Raj Kumar Kukreja and friends (Davis John and Suresh Dahiya) went to the office at Sapna Cinema building, they were shocked to see that cupboards therein were broken and some files and other important documents were missing. When they enquired about the damage, routine working of the cinema and receipt / payments position from the Manager, the petitioners – Mohan Kukreja and Madan Kuk