ORDER :

1. The petitioners have preferred these misc. petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.16/2022 registered at Police Station Jhanwar, District Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC.

2. Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that the present petitioners are only witnesses to the alleged document of sale deed and they are not at all the beneficiaries of the alleged sale deed. Counsels further submit that these petitioners have only identified the purchaser of the sale deed. So far as petitioner Ummed Singh is concerned, he has not identified anybody and no role whatsoever has been assigned to him. In these circumstances, since the FIR lodged against the petitioners is frivolous, it may be quashed.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. I have considered the arguments and perused the case diary.

5. On perusal of the case diary, it would reveal that firstly the sale deed was executed in favour of one Sukharam and at that time, three persons, viz., Swaroop Singh, Puna Ram and Ishwar Singh were the witnesses in the alleged sale deed and they identified the forged person. Further, the original seller of the land namely Hema Ram was not present at the time of execution of alleged sale deed and someone impersonated him and the aforesaid three persons identified him during the execution of alleged sale deed. The accused persons, Utamaram and Ummed Singh are concerned, they also conspired with other persons and were present at the time of execution of sale deed. This clearly shows that the present petitioners did conspiracy and thereby committed the aforesaid offence. In these circumstances, at the initial stage of investigation, it cannot be said that a false FIR has been lodged against the petitioners. Thus, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR.

6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Choudhary Bhajanlal & Ors. : 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335], laid down guidelines for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR and criminal proceedings. The Court held:

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

1. Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

2. Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or compl