IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be sparing and cautious, and the court should only intervene if the uncontroverted allegations in the complaint prima facie establish the case or if the continuation of the criminal proceeding results in miscarriage of justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside First Information Report being C.R. No.I- 51/2017 registered with Visnagar City Police Station for the offences under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The gist of the FIR is as under, On 06.03.2017, the Taluka Development Officer received one application from the applicants seeking ‘Sanad’ for their land, however, the Taluka Development Officer having suspicion over the order of the year 1992 produced by the applicants, entrusted the investigation to the respondent no.2 herein and in pursuance thereto, detailed inquiry was carried out that there was no record found available with the office for passing the said order nor the copy of the said order was available with the office and thus, it is alleged that with a sole intent to grab the Government land, the accused have forged and fabricated the order and thereby the accused have committed alleged offences.

3. Heard learned advocate, Ms. Archita Prajapati for the applicants, learned APP Mr. Dhavan Jayswal for the respondent no.1 and learned advocate, Ms. Sejal Mandaviya for the respondent no.2.

4. Learned advocate, Ms. Prajapati submitted that on 22.05.2017, the impugned FIR has been registered before Visnagar City Police Station for the alleged offences against the present applicants. Learned advocate submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, the applicant no.1 has submitted an application before the Taluka Development Officer for the purpose of getting ‘Sanad’ for the property, which they are using since number of years and at the time of submission of the said application, the applicant no.1 has produced copy of the order dated 06.05.1992 passed by the concerned revenue authority in favour of the father of the applicant no.1 and on the strength of the said order, they have become the absolute owner and occupier of the property. Learned advocate submitted that however, the Taluka Development Officer was prima facie of the opinion that the order upon which reliance is placed by the applicant no.1, is not genuine one, therefore, he had made discreet inquiry about the genuineness of the said order and on the strength of the preliminary inquiry, it was found out that in fact, for passing of the order dated 06.05.1992, there was no such proceeding undertaken and there is no record available in that regard, therefore, the Taluka Development Officer was of the opinion that with sole intent to grab Government property/land, forged and fabricated documents have been prepared and the said documents are also produced on record as if the said documents are genuine and by doing so, the accused has committed alleged offences, therefore, he has entrusted the inquiry to the Circle Officer and in pursuance thereto, inquiry was carried out and it was found that the said order was shame, false and forged one, therefore on the strength of the report prepared by the officer concerned, a specific direction was given to the concerned Circle Officer to register the complaint against the accused persons. Learned advocate submitted that pursuance to the registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer has commenced the investigation and as soon as the said fact has come to the notice of the present applicants, they have immediately approached this Court and this Court has protected the applicants considering the role attributed to them. Learned advocate submitted that in fact, as per the case of the prosecution, the said so-called order was prepared and issued in the year 1992 and at the relevant point of time, the age of the accused no.1 is only 9 years, therefore by no stretch of imagination, it can be held that the involvement of a boy aged about 8-9 years to prepare forged and fabricated documents is to be found out. Learned advocate further submitted that during lifespan of the grandfather of the appli