The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of fraudulent intention at the inception of a transaction to establish the offence of cheating and the need for making a false document with the intent to cause damage or injury to constitute forgery.

Judgment

Sanjay Dhar, J.—Through the medium of instant petition, filed under Section 561-A of J&K Code of Criminal Procedure (corresponding to Section 482 of the Central Code of Criminal Procedure), the petitioners have challenged FIR No. 80/2018 for the offences under Sections 467/471/34 & 420 RPC registered with Police Station, Kathua.

2. The facts, giving rise to the filing of instant petition, are that petitioners No. 1 and 2 entered into an agreement to purchase land measuring 2 kanals comprised under Khasra No. 519 situated at Ward No. 9 Taraf Manjli Tehsil and District Kathua with petitioner No.2 in terms of Agreement to Sell dated 14.01.2012. According to the petitioners, an amount of Rs.10.00 lac was paid as part payment to petitioner No.3 and they were put in possession of the land in question. It is contended that petitioner No.3 was in exclusive possession of the land in question and the other co-sharers had conveyed their no objection to the execution of the Agreement to Sell by petitioner No.3 in favour of other petitioners. It is also contended that respondent No.2 has nothing to do with the land in question and that he has never been in possession of the same. It is averred that, on an earlier occasion, respondent No.2 had lodged FIR for offence under Section 447 RPC against petitioner No.1, but after investigation, the said case was closed. It is the further case of the petitioners that respondent No.2, in order to harass and pressurize the petitioners, after closure of earlier FIR, moved an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua and on the directions of the said Court, impugned FIR came to be registered against the petitioners.

3. The petitioners have challenged the impugned FIR on several grounds. The main grounds urged by the petitioners are that the contents of the FIR do not disclose commission of any offence against the petitioners, even if same are taken at their face value. It is further urged that the dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.2, if any, is essentially a civil dispute and criminal prosecution is not maintainable in a case of such nature.

4. The petitioners have also called into question the order of learned Magistrate whereby the directions were issued to the concerned Police Station to register FIR against the petitioners, as, according to the petitioners, the said order has been passed without application of mind. It is contended that the impugned FIR has been lodged only to pressurize and blackmail the petitioners so as to coerce them to give away their right over the land in question.

5. Respondent No.1 has filed the status report, according to which, on 02.03.2018 a complaint was filed by respondent No.2 that was marked by the learned CJM to the Police Station, Kathua and on the basis of contents of the said complaint, the subject FIR came to be registered. It is further stated in the status report that statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 164-A Cr.PC, whereas the statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161-A Cr.P.C. The investigation is stated to be still in progress as the demarcation report from the Revenue Department is still awaited. According to respondent No.1, prima facie, offences have been established against the petitioners.

6. Respondent No.2, the complainant, did not file any reply to the petition, but he has filed an application for vacation of the interim order dated 08.05.2018 passed by this Court whereby the investigation of the subject FIR was stayed. In his application, respondent No.2 has submitted that he, his sister and petitioner No.3 are co-sharers of the land in question. Apart from this, the legal heirs of late Chaman Lal are also stated to be the co-sharers of the land in question. It is contended that the petitioners, with a view to defraud and deprive the respondent No.2 and other co-sharers have entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 14.01.2012 in resp