JUDGMENT :

V.M. Pancholi, J.

1. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short) for quashing and setting aside the order dated 27.12.2021 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhidham, Kutch in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 20211.

2. Looking to the issue involved in the present applications, learned senior counsel appearing for the parties jointly requested that these applications be finally decided at admission stage. As the issue involved and the order impugned in these applications is common, with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, both these applications are heard together and disposed off by this common order.

3. Heard learned senior advocate Mr. H.M. Parikh assisted by learned advocate Mr. Rashesh Parikh for the petitioner, learned senior advocate Mr. P.C. Kavina assisted by learned advocate Mr. D.K. Puj for respondent No. 2 and learned APP Mr. Dabhi for respondent No. 1-state.

4. Learned senior advocate Mr. Parikh appearing for the applicants submits that Regular Civil Suit No. 7 of 2007 has been filed by one Shri Sureshbhai Trevadia through his power of attorney i.e. respondent No. 2 herein. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 filed the application vide Exh. 26 contending that the signature of power of attorney of the applicant i.e. Shri Kishorilal Soni on vakalatnama, caveat as well as on the written statement is forged and thereby the applicant and others have committed offences punishable under Sections 193, 196, 199, 200, 205, 209, 419, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It is, therefore, requested that inquiry as contemplated under Section 340 of the Code be initiated. The concerned Court gave separate number to the said application being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 435 of 2009. Thereafter, the concerned Court passed an order on 22.10.2008 that the said application be returned to the respondent No. 2 for production of the same before the appropriate court. Thereafter, the said application was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the said matter was registered before the said Court. Thereafter, the concerned Magistrate passed the order on 16.6.2010 and directed to make preliminary inquiry, copy of the said order is placed on record at page No. 51 of the compilation.

4.1. Learned senior advocate Mr. Parikh, thereafter, contended that during the course of preliminary inquiry, the respondent No. 2 examined two witnesses and after considering the material placed before the concerned Magistrate Court, the order dated 2.4.2011 came to be passed whereby the application given by the present respondent No. 2 under Section 340 of the Code came to be dismissed. Against the said order, the respondent No. 2 preferred Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2011 before the concerned Sessions Court. However, the concerned Sessions Court passed the impugned order dated 27.12.2021 whereby the Criminal Appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 came to be allowed and the order passed by the concerned Magistrate was set aside. Further direction was given to the trial Court to file complaint against the present applicants under Section 340(1)(b) of the Code. Copy of the impugned order is placed on record at page No. 82 of the compilation.

4.2. Learned senior advocate Mr. Parikh assailed the impugned order passed by the Sessions Court on various grounds including the ground of maintainability of the appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 before the Sessions Court. However, the main contention raised by the learned senior advocate is required to be considered for deciding the issue involved in the present matter and therefore this Court has not gone into all the contentions raised by the learned senior advocate for the applicant.

4.3. Learned senior advocate Mr. Parikh has referred to the findings recorded by the Sessions Court in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the impugned order. After referring to the same, it i