A court cannot take cognizance of an offence affecting the administration of justice without conducting a preliminary inquiry to determine whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to initiate proceedings against the accused.

P.K. Lohra, J.

1. The instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. filed by accused-petitioners challenges order dated 5th of December 2007, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu (for short, learned trial Court), in Criminal Original Case No. 563 of 2007 (Ganga Singh Shekhawat vs. Satyanarain and Others), as well as order dated 4th of December 2007, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Churu in Criminal Misc. Case No. 210 of 2007 (Bajrang Lal Swami vs. Satyanarain and Others), with the prayer for dismissal of complaint filed against them and their consequential discharge.

2. The facts, apposite for the purpose of this petition, are on 05.12.2007 a complaint was filed by one Bajranglal (since deceased), now represented by his son Pradeep Kumar, in the Court of learned trial Court and on that basis inquiry was conducted under Section 340 Cr.P.C. In the complaint, it was inter-alia stated that petitioners/accused filed a civil suit No. 17/04 (Suit No. 106/89, 23/94) in the Court of District Judge, Churu which was subsequently transferred to the Court of learned Addl. District Judge (Fast Track), Churu and was decreed. Later on, that Court abolished and the Court of District Judge, Churu, being the successor Court, complaint was submitted before it. It was alleged in the complaint that in the suit petitioners/accused had filed copies of pattas of some lands, which were not subject matter of dispute in Suit No. 17/2004 and also produced forged gift deed, and obtained a decree in their favour. The complaint echoed that a land in village Churu, known as Ramkaran Ka Kua, measuring 38880 Sq. Yds. in respect of which a patta was issued on Migsar Sudi Tritya of Samvat 1921, was covered by a Patta of Samvat 1921, issued by erstwhile State of Bikaner in the names of Ram Karan, Kunji Lal and Bihari Lal for the purposes of construction of well and step-wells, out of which a triangular piece of land, measuring 10880 Sq. Yds was purchased for consideration and got converted by the patta-holders in Samvat year 1924. However, no house could be constructed and land remained as it was. The complaint further mentioned that subsequently Churu Charitable Trust requested Land Acquisition Officer (S.D.O.), Churu for acquiring and allotting land of Ramkaran Ka Kuwa and Badi for girls college, hostel and playground on which land acquisition proceedings were initiated and notice was issued to Satyanarain, the legal heir of Kunjilal, Biharilal and Ramkaran, on which Satyanarain surrendered the land of both pattas to State and received compensation in lieu thereof. The State Govt. resuming the land took possession of it from Narayanram and allotted the land to Trust. Accordingly, the pattas issued in Samvat 1921 and 1924 stood cancelled and the Trust got constructed a Girls College, hostel and playground on the said land but also included the land of Ramkaran Ka Kuwa and Badi in the land belonging to the College. The complaint further states that after about lapse of three years, petitioners No. 1 & 2 got executed two gift deeds from Satyanarain; one in respect of authorization made in their favour to receive the amount of compensation from State Government and another in connection with the land belonging to Bajrang Lal, for which no patta existed in the name of Satyanarain. According to complainant, on the basis of aforesaid gift deeds, the petitioners in connivance with one Bhagwati Prasad instituted Suit No. 17/2004 on 20.11.1989 in the Court of District Judge, Churu through Sri Niwas, petitioner No. 7 herein, as power of attorney of rest of the petitioners/accused for getting possession of land, however, original pattas and gift deeds were not filed with the suit. Later on, during recording of evidence of petitioner No. 2 Shiv Bhagwan, on 13.03.1997, he produced and exhibited the certified copies of the pattas of Samvat 1921 and 1924, which were already cancelled. In this way, copies of alleged cancelled pattas were filed with the int