Important Point – Courts are invested with all such powers as are necessary to do right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice.

1. The petitioners, in this petition, preferred under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure seek the allowance of this Court in quashing the FIR bearing No. 97/2017 dated 21.07.2017 registered against them by the respondent No.1-State of Jammu and Kashmir, through SHO police Station Channi Himmat, Jammu, for the commission of offences punishable under Section 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 RPC.

2. It has been delineated in the FIR that in a complaint of the complainant, namely, Rakesh Kumar Gupta S/o Kasturi Lal Gupta R/o Greenbelt Park, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu addressed to the Director General of the Police of Jammu and Kashmir and the Inspector General of Police, Jammu, it has been alleged that the complainant constructed a three storeyed building comprising of five shops in the year 1992 on land measuring seven marlas. In Shop No.3, located in the ground floor, the complainant carried his business under the name and style of “M/s ABLE Traders”; Shop No.2 was converted into a store and in the basement a Boutique and Gymnasium was being run by him besides a cement and spare parts store in the ground floor. The documents, it is stated bear testimony to this fact. The complainant has further stated that his mother owns land measuring 11 marlas in Khasra No.790 min, Khata No.162 min and Khewat No.4 situated at village Deeli, which has been purchased vide a deed of sale duly registered on 17.02.2002. The complainant has proceeded to state that during the night intervening between 7th and 8th May, 2005, the accused, named, Arit Gupta, Sumant Singh, Vinod Kher and Rakesh Kumar Bagotra along with some other persons entered into the building of the complainant with an intention to commit theft and cause his death. They caught hold of him, confined him illegally and threatened to kill him in case he tries to stop them. He raised a hue and cry but the accused persons removed the goods and the material from the building in three vehicles and thereby put him to a loss of more than 16 Lac. This was done by the accused persons at the behest of the accused No.1, a senior police officer who hatched a criminal conspiracy to deprive him from his landed estate as he had strained relations with the complainant. He used his influence to facilitate the commission of the above said crime and prepared fraudulent documents in connivance with the revenue officials and other accused persons. On his complaint, an FIR was registered in this regard but the accused managed to stall the investigation of the case. The accused prepared and managed to get the sale deed executed and registered by forging the signature of his mother and thereby committed fraud. The complainant has also stated that he has mortgaged his landed property with the Citizen Cooperative Bank and has obtained the loan from the said bank and there was no question of disposing of the said property in favour of the accused persons. He never sold the land to the tune of seven (07) marlas falling under Khasra No. 131 min Khata No.36 min and Khewat No.1 situated at Channi Kamala along with the structure raised thereupon to Rajinder Singh, Varinder Singh and Jai Singh in equal shares as reflected in the fake documents dated 08.04.2005. The accused persons executed a sale deed 28.04.2005 in favour of Rakesh Kumar Bagotra which was registered on 03.05.2005. The complainant has further averred that the two shops were also directed to be attached by the learned Principal District Judge Jammu in the execution petition and the same have been handed over to the bank for auction as the complainant was not in a position to liquidate his liability and now after clearing the liability the said property has been released in his favour. The complainant has further articulated that it was at the instance of the accused persons, namely, Rajinder Singh, Varinder Singh and Jai Singh, that the concerned bank, with whom the property was mortgaged, filed a complaint against him to the effect that he h