JUDGMENT :

A.P. Thaker, J.

1. By way of present petition filed under Articles 14, 19, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks to quash and set aside the First Information Report being I-C.R. No. 72 of 2016 lodged with Dharampur Police Station and the charge-sheet No. 8 of 2017 dated 25.02.2017 submitted by Dharampur Police Station in Criminal Case No. 162 of 2017 before the Dharampur Magistrate Court for the offences punishable under Sections 423, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that the respondent No. 2 herein has lodged written complaint with an allegation that the accused in collusion with each other with a view to take illegal possession and usurp the property belonging to the complainant in Dharampur Taluka known as Darbar Compound being City Survey Nos. 1623, 1624, 1625, 1915/part 3/A/B, 1918, 1919, 1922 carried out a criminal conspiracy by purchasing stamp paper of Rs. 100/- on 21.09.2013 in the name of the concerned accused and on that made a lease deed for 80 years on 24.09.2013 and made bogus signature of the complainant, which was signed by the concerned accused person and, thus, they have created bogus document and the present petitioner has used the stamp of forensic document examiner and that document being put forth as genuine one and thereby, the accused attempted to take possession of the land and have committed the alleged crime. The main allegation against the petitioner is to the effect that she has allegedly conspired with the other accused and the complainant does not know the petitioner and the petitioner has affixed her stamp of forensic document examiner on the lease deed and on the allegation that for doing so, there was no reason for the petitioner and, therefore, she has allegedly conspired with the other accused.

2.1. It is the contention of the petitioner that she is practicing as forensic document examiner and handwriting expert and attached with 20 banks and financial institutions and has also worked for the Ordinance Defense Factory and has also given several lectures and also examined many documents and has appeared as witness in the Court of law. It is also her contention that two persons came before her for opinion to the signature of the lease deed and, thereafter, after examining everything, she has qualified the signature of the lease deed as has been written by writer of the represented admitted signatures of one purported to be of Divya Devi. She has contended that she has specifically narrated that the description of the documents is as per representations given. She has contended that she has only taken the reasonable fees that too before giving the opinion and has documented the receipt and returned of the originals, which were with her only for a limited period of time. She has contended that she does not know the people, properties, disputes etc and has purely given an opinion on the basis of the documents produced before her and her stamp is not there on the lease deed. She has contended that she has admittedly not a part/ beneficiary of the lease deed or having any relation with the people or the matter.

2.2. The petitioner has contended that even before the complaint made on 27.02.2015, the petitioner was approached on 03.02.2015 by the complainant's agents/servants first asking her that whether she has stamped the notarized document and in spite of extensive clarifications on the part of the petitioner, they made allegation against her. It is contended that the agents/servants even then refused to appreciate the role of an expert and gave her personal threats as well as to drag her into criminal proceedings and, therefore, she has filed an application with Tilaknagar Police Station.

2.3. It is contended by the petitioner that there is no offence made out in the alleged FIR and/or the charge-sheet. She has contended that the pres