Point of Law: Power under Section 482 CrPC has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent abuse of process of any Court and to secure ends of justice.

ORDER :

1. Instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No.0197/2022 registered at Police Station Bichhwal, District Bikaner for offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC.

2. The facts in brief are that the complainant-respondent No.2 being power of attorney holder of Bhoma Ram submitted a complaint before the learned Special Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (PCPNDT Cases), Bikaner alleging therein that Smt. Asi Devi D/o Late Jeevan Ram and mother of Bhoma Ram was having 1/5th share in joint agriculture land situated in Village Bamblu being Khasra No.161 measuring 13.50000 hectares, Khasra No.303 measuring 11.3300 hectares, Khasra No.306 measuring 8.2000 hectares, Khasra No.333 measuring 1.7000 hectares and Khasra No.425 measuring 9.5700 hectares, total 44.3000 hectares. Smt. Asi Devi died on 12.05.1995 and after her death, Dhanna Ram and Bhoma Ram were her descendants. It was further alleged in the FIR that the present petitioners while hatching the conspiracy got prepared a forged succession certificate on 10.05.1995 from Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bapeu showing themselves descendants of Asi Devi and with the collusion of Patwari, Tehsildar and Girdavar, get recorded 1/5th share of Asi Devi in their names in revenue record and subsequently on 27.04.2022, they sold 1/10th of the agriculture land to one Vimla Devi through a registered sale-deed. The complainant alleged that by the aforesaid act, the petitioners had committed forgery with Bhoma Ram.

3. The learned trial court sent the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Police Station Bichhwal, District Bikaner for investigation. Upon which, FIR No.0197/2022 was registered for offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC.

4. Hence, being aggrieved by the impugned FIR, the petitioners filed the present misc. petition for quashing of the same.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the father of the petitioners Shri Dhanna Ram and Asi Devi were expired in the years 1992 and 1993 respectively and at the time of their death, the petitioners were minor. Also, the petitioners have not initiated any proceeding for obtaining the succession certificate issued on 10.05.1995 as on the said date also, the petitioners were minor and only on the basis of the said succession certificate, the land in dispute was recorded in the petitioners’ name in revenue record. Counsel submits that the entire proceeding was undertaken by Bhoma Ram himself, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners have deceived any property fraudulently or dishonestly, therefore, the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR are totally false.

6. Counsel further submits that the complainant-respondent No.2 has lodged the impugned FIR being power of attorney holder of Bhoma Ram, whereas the land in question actually belonged to Jeevan Ram. Jeevan Ram was having three sons namely Jetha Ram, Shera Ram & Uda Ram and two daughters Asi and Rewanti. The respondent No.2 is son of Jetha Ram and Aadu Ram is son of Shera Ram. The respondent No.2 with the intent to grab the land of share of Shera Ram, showing himself son of Shera Ram has get mutated the land, therefore, Adu Ram filed a complaint before S.P., Bikaner against respondent No.2 on 09.02.2022. Subsequently, compromise was arrived at between the respondent No.2 and Adu Ram. Counsel submits that the respondent No.2 with the intent to take revenge of the said dispute, has filed the present FIR against the petitioner.

7. It is further submitted that Bhoma Ram, petitioners and other legal heirs of Jeevan Ram and Asi had filed a suit before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bikaner for declaration, correction in record and partition. Counsel submits that later on, the said suit was withdrawn and a false averment has been made by the complainant that the petitioners had prepared a forged succession certificate in the year 1995. Counsel submits that during investigation, the Investigation Officer has not taken