The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between executing a document claiming the property as one's own and executing a document by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorized by the owner, as clarified in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. (2009) 8 SCC 751.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Mehta, J. - The petitioners have preferred the present petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), inter alia, challenging the FIR No. 114 dated 02.07.2017, that has been registered in Police Station Rani, District Pali seeking petitioners' prosecution for the offences under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Mr. Deora, learned counsel for the petitioners narrated the broad facts in relation to disputed plot and construction raised thereupon and submitted that one Rupa Ram was the owner of the disputed property, who passed away in 2006 leaving following legal heirs: (i) Khumi Devi (widow); (ii) Shiv Lal; (iii) Jeevraj (iv) Dalpat; (v) Fancy and (vi) Jaynti.

3. It is informed by learned counsel that one of the above referred legal heirs, namely, Shiv Lal transferred the entire property to the complainant claiming himself to be the sole owner of the property on the basis of a will purportedly executed by his father Rupa Ram.

4. In the meantime, the present petitioners being legal heirs of Rupa Ram executed a power of attorney in favour of Hanwant Singh, who in turn transferred the property to one Mohan Singh, who is one of the petitioners herein (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 91/2018).

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Mohan Singh is bona-fide purchaser of the property as all the legal heirs of Rupa Ram excluding Shiv Lal sold their 5/6th share in the property through Hanwant Singh a power of attorney holder and therefore, the transfer in question was valid.

6. He pointed out that the petitioners have already challenged the will purportedly executed in the favour of Shiv Lal by way of suit, which is pending consideration before the competent Court.

7. Learned counsel read the contents of the FIR and argued that the complainant- Pritam, having purchased the property from Shiv Lal has levelled false allegation that the petitioners have created forged and concocted documents, simply in order to ward off a decree against him/Shiv Lal in the said suit.

8. Learned counsel argued that allegation of forgery in creation of the documents in absence of or when it is not alleged that signatures on the power of attorney, which has been executed by Khumi Devi; Jeevraj; Dalpat; Fancy and Jaynti are in any manner forged. It cannot be said that the contentious property has been irregularly transferred to Mohan Singh by creating forged and fabricated documents.

9. It was also argued that in any case, since the complainant-Pritam himself does not claim to have been cheated by the petitioners, no offence under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code can be said to have been committed.

10. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. (2009) 8 SCC 751 and argued that at the best, it is a case of civil dispute but the same has been given colour of crime.

11. Mr. Shrimali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant on the other hand argued that the petitioners have fraudulently transferred a land, may be on the basis of a validly executed document being power of attorney given to Hanwant Singh, who in any case was well aware of the fact that the property did not belong to them in the teeth of the will, which they knew that their prepositus Rupa Ram had executed in favour of Shiv Lal.

12. Mr. Shrimali, thus, argued that in spite of the factum of the property belonging to Shiv Lal, his mother and remaining brothers and sisters have executed a power of attorney and transferred the land to Mohan Singh in order to deprive the complainant from the rightful ownership of the property in question.

13. Learned Public Prosecutor informed the Court that after thorough investigation, the Investigating Officer has found the petitioners guilty of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and the investigation is over and charge-sheet is rea