Z.K. Saiyed, J.

1. Present Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "Code"), is preferred by the applicants, challenging the order passed by the learned Sixth Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, I/c., Jamnagar, below application filed by the Investigating Officer in connection with the offence registered being C.R. No. I 135 of 2016 before City "C" Division Police Station, Jamnagar dated 19.9.2016, whereby the learned trial Judge issued warrant under Section 70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The aforesaid complaint came to be lodged against the applicants as well as other accused for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, wherein it is stated that the complainant and other persons are the owners of 24 plots of original Survey No. 102, Final Plot No. 64/1 and 64/2 situated at Jamnagar. It is also stated therein that one forged and bogus document of Power of Attorney was executed in favour one Pravin Kanabhai Kandoriya, accused No. 3 and on the basis of said fake document, the said accused No. 3 sold out in all 25 plots of the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 by executing registered sale deed No. 4333 of 2003 dated 11.12.2003. It is also the case of the complainant that the present applicants along with other accused persons hatched conspiracy and created forged documents and thereby transferred the properties. Therefore, the applicants committed alleged offences. Thereafter, the applicant No. 3 herein had preferred an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court on 5.7.2016 which came to be rejected vide order dated 23.7.2016. The applicant Nos. 1 and 2 have also preferred anticipatory bail on 13.10.2016. In the due course of hearing of the said application before the learned Sessions Judge, the Investigating Officer Mr. A.S. Chavda made application/report for issuance of warrant under Section 70 of Code against the applicants. In the said application, Sixth Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, I/c., Jamnagar, passed impugned order of issuing warrant under Section 70 of the Code. Hence, present Criminal Revision Application is preferred by the applicants herein.

3. On 9.11.2016, this Court has issued Rule making it returnable on 10.11.2016. On 2.12.2016, after hearing the parties, this Court granted interim relief in terms of para 12(B).

4. Learned senior counsel Mr. N.D. Nanavati for Mr. Chirag Upadhyay appearing for the applicants submitted that the order impugned is unjust and improper and learned trial Judge has wrongly passed the order and the impugned order is also not as per the provisions of well settled law. He also submitted that the Investigating Officer made such application intentionally with a view to keep the applicants behind the bar. He also submitted that the case diary and documents upon which the learned trial Judge put reliance, suffers from conjectures. He also submitted that the learned trial Judge has passed cryptic order limiting the scope of availing legal remedies and rights enshrined under the Code. He also submitted that the applicants have fundamental right to personal liberty and the applicants are not avoiding their arrest or interrogation and therefore, impugned order is wholly bad and same is required to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the dispute is of civil nature and for settling the score with the applicants, the original complaint filed false complaint against the applicants by abusing the criminal machinery. He also submitted that the applicant No. 3 has preferred anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court and same was rejected vide order dated 23.7.2016. Thereafter, the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 preferred application for obtaining anticipatory bail and same is pending now and during course of hearing, the Investigating Officer filed application fo