The main legal point established is that allegations of forgery warrant a preliminary enquiry by the Crime Branch, and the Magistrate has the power to direct investigation and the procedure for lodging an FIR.

APPCR No. 02/2018:

For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the requirement of filing of certified copy of order dated 23.09.2015 passed by the learned Special Municipal Mobile Magistrate, Jammu, is dispensed with.

Disposed of accordingly.

CRMC No. 22/2018 & I.A. No. 01/2018:

1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for short, Cr.P.C.) petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 23.09.2015 passed by the learned Special Municipal Mobile Magistrate, Jammu; PV No. 119/2015 registered by respondent No. 1 on the basis of the aforesaid order dated 23.09.2016 and judgment and order dated 20.09.2016 passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Jammu whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed.

2. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 approached the petitioner for purchase of piece of land measuring 3 kanals 16 marlas comprising of khewat No. 1-min, khata No. 42-min and khasra No. 301 situated at village Suketar, Tehsil and District, Jammu. They settled the total sale consideration of Rs. 14,50,000/- in respect of the suit land. The petitioner paid an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as advance consideration to the respondent No. 2. An agreement to sell has also been executed on 06.12.2011, which has been attested by Notary Public City, Jammu. As per this agreement, the respondent No. 2 was under a contractual obligation to provide the fard of the land to the petitioner at his own costs for the execution of the sale deed within one month. It is stated that petitioner approached the respondent No. 2 on 04.01.2012 and told him that he had arranged the balance sale consideration of Rs. 12,50,000/- and requested him to provide the fard Intkhab for the execution of the sale deed. However, the respondent No. 2 expressed his inability to obtain the fardintkhab Jamabandi within the stipulated period of one month for the execution of the sale deed The respondent No. 2 expressed the desire to handover the possession of the said land to the petitioner and further stated that the balance sale consideration would be paid at the time of obtaining fard and registration of the sale deed, to which petitioner agreed. Accordingly the respondent No. 2 handed over the possession of the said land to the petitioner on 04.01.2012 and the agreement has also been reduced into writing by the parties on 4.1.2012 itself on the overleaf of the original agreement dated 6.12.2011. The said subsequent agreement has also duly been signed by the petitioner and respondent No. 2. It is stated that since then he is in possession of the said land as owner. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 transferred the said land in favour of the petitioner by handing over the possession. Only formalities of obtaining fard, execution and registration of sale deed were required to be done. The petitioner and his associate Sh. Gopal Singh who is in possession of land under lying khasra No. 302 and khasra No. 305 have decided to construct a big temple complex on the said land. Subsequently, the respondent No. 2 refused to obtain the fard and execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. He has also extended threat of dispossession. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction in the court of learned Sub Judge, Jammu. An interim order was also passed by the said court in the said suit. The respondent No. 2 has filed the written statement in which he had admitted the execution of the agreement to sell dated 06.12.2011, however, he disputed the execution of supplementary agreement dated 06.12.2011. The learned Sub-Judge, Jammu vide order dated 22.10.2014 vacated the interim order. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said judgment and order in the court of learned 2nd Addl. District Judge, Jammu. It is further stated that petitioner was hoping that good sense will prevail upon the respondent No. 2 and he would obtain the fard and execute the sale