1. The captioned three petitions are filed by original accused persons by invoking provisions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioners – original accused persons have prayed that the impugned complaint which is registered as Criminal Inquiry No.10 of 2010 may be quashed for the reasons mentioned in the petitions.

2. The petitioner in Criminal Misc. Application No.5472 of 2012 is the original accused No.6 and he has prayed, inter alia, that:

“12(B) Your Lordships be pleased to quashed and set aside the Criminal Inquiry No.10 of 2010 registered with the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat qua the present applicant.”

2.1 The petition being Criminal Misc. Application No.6452 of 2012 is preferred by three petitioners who are original accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 and they have prayed, inter alia, that:

“7b. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the complaint filed before Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat vide Inquiry Case No.10 of 2010 along with all the subsequent proceedings thereto qua present applicant.”

2.2 The petition being Criminal Misc. Application No.5935 of 2012 is preferred by original accused No.1 and he has prayed, inter alia, that:

“10(a)To quash and set aside the complaint being Criminal Inquiry No.10/2010 and the order dated 18/04/2012 passed therein qua the present petitioner and to pass all incidental and consequential orders as may be deemed fit and proper;

2.3 In all petitions, the petitioners have challenged the same complaint, i.e. Criminal Inquiry Case No.10 of 2010 which is filed by present respondent No.2, alleging offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 114 and 120B of IPC.

3. So far as factual background of the impugned complaint is concerned, the petitioners have, inter alia, averred that the grandfather of the complainant had purchased the land in question somewhere in August, 1970. It is further claimed that the grandfather of the complainant executed a power of attorney in September, 1986. It appears that on strength of the said power of attorney, in July 1989, accused No.1 sold the land in question to three persons by way of registered sale deed. It appears that subsequently, father and uncle of the complainant challenged the revenue entry which was mutated in favour of the three persons to whom the land in question was sold by accused No.1 in July, 1989. It appears that the revenue entry was cancelled. Subsequently, somewhere in 2002, the said order was challenged before the competent authority. According to the claim of the petitioners, the said subsequent challenge in 2002 has given rise to the impugned complaint. Accused No.1 has claimed that in March, 2005, a confirmation/ratification deed was executed stating, inter alia, that the grandfather of the complainant had received sale consideration in 1989 in his presence and the sale deed dated 3.7.1989 was executed. Accused No.1 has also claimed that subsequently in November, 2006, the father and brother of present complainant executed registered confirmation deed in light of which Civil Suit No.670 of 2005 came to be unconditionally withdrawn. It appears that after considering the allegations in the complaint, learned Magistrate considered it appropriate to pass order dated 18.4.2012 directing investigation under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) and called for report. The accused persons, i.e. all petitioners in three petitions are aggrieved by the said complaint, i.e. Inquiry Case No.10 of 2010 and the order dated 18.4.2012 directing investigation.

4. Mr.Nanavati, learned senior counsel has appeared for accused No.6, Mr.Dave, learned advocate has appeared for accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 and Mr.Raju, learned advocate has appeared for accused No.1, i.e. petitioner in Criminal Misc. Application No.5935 of 2012. The respondent – complainant is represented by Mr.K.S. Shah, learned advocate.

5. The complaint challenged in all three cases is common and the complainant – priva