The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court, while exercising its inherent powers, is not required to adjudicate upon the correctness or genuineness of the allegations.

ORDER :

1. These criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.c. have been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR No.184/2020 registered at Police Station Banar, Jodhpur City East for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120B IPC.

2. From the perusal of the FIR, it is evident that complainant Raghunath Singh submitted a written report before Police Station, Maha Mandir, Jodhpur stating inter alia that on 9.12.1993, his father had purchased a part of land admeaduring 3 bighas and 15 biswas, out land bearing Khasra No.167 admeasuring 46 bighas and 15 biswas, situated in Gram Digari, in the name of the complainant- Ragunath who was aged about 12 years at that time, from one khatedar Pirsingh son of Moti Singh through joint sale deed, which was registered on 09.12.1993 in the office of Sub-Registrar II, Jodhpur. Khatedar Pir Singh executed the sale agreement in favour of complainant-Ragunath, making the complainant owner of agricultural plot No.7. It was further averred in the complaint that the complainant since then, is having ownership rights and has been enjoying possession over the land.

3. As per the complaint, the complainant recently came to know from one Dilip Singh that one Mohan Singh (accused-petitioner) had met with Dilip Singh (complaint's acquaintance) and told that he is the owner of agricultural plot No.7 situated in Khasra No.167/2 and also showed his willingness to sell the plot. When Dilip Singh asked for the documents showing ownership of Mohan Singh over the disputed land, he was shown by Mohan Singh a copy of registry dated 09.07.2020. Petitioner-Mohan Singh had received a sum of Rs.25,000/-from Dilip Singh as advance consideration and provided him with a written receipt. After making enquiries about the ownership of agricultural plot in question, Dilip Singh came to know that the plot in question is a purchased property of complainant since year 1993. Thereupon, Dilip Singh contacted the complainant who then came to know that accused-petitioner Mohan Singh by making accused-petitioner Shravan Singh, a power of attorney holder of Chhatar Singh, had executed the registry in his favour in the office of Sub-Registrar I, Jodhpur. Accused-petitioner Shravan Singh had gotten the power of attorney notarised from notary public on 7.8.2003.

4. The complainant on the basis of above mentioned documents enquired and came to know that Chhatar Singh had passed away way back in the year 2002 and that he had not executed any general power of attorney during his lifetime. It was further stated in the complaint that after the death of Chhatar Singh, the registered sale deed held by petitioner-Mohan Singh is a forged document which has been created by him. It was further stated in the complaint that accused-petitioners Mohan Singh and Shravan Singh, in order to make this fake and forged document had taken aid of accused-petitioners Arjun Singh and Megha Ram who had signed the document as witnesses. On 26.07.2020, when Dilip Singh came to know about the above factual scenario, he contacted Mohan Singh and told him that the sale deed, on the strength of which, he was selling the land is a completely forged document. Accused-petitioner Mohan Singh on being confronted about the document by Dilip Singh was told by him that he is rescinding the agreement to sell the aforesaid plot. He further told Dilip Singh to return the photo copy of the sale deed and the advance receipt which had been given to him. However, the petitioner did not return the money received as advance consideration. Accused-petitioners Mohan Singh, Shravan Singh, Arjun Singh, Megha Ram and Devi Singh had conspired with each other and created a forged general power of attorney in the name of a dead person and using the same, had executed sale deed in favour of Mohan Singh, in order to grab the land (agricultural plot No.7) belonging to the complainant.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the FIR has been lodged again