The central legal point established in the judgment is that the offense of forgery and cheating requires specific elements to be established, and the court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these legal provisions.

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2.

2. Initially, this application was filed for quashing of the order dated 15/09/2009, passed by the then S.D.J.M, Jamshedpur, in C/1 Case No. 1759 of 2007, whereby and where under the petition filed under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for discharge was rejected, which was affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, vide its order dated 12/01/2011. Subsequently, when the charges were framed under Sections 420/120B, 406/120B, 467/120B, 427, 504, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, vide order dated 09/05/2011, that order was also challenged.

3. The case of the prosecution, as has been made out in the complaint petition, is that initially there was a Firm known as “ Chhotelal G. Vyas & Sons” to which Chhotelal G. Vyas and his son Bharat Vyas (petitioner no. 1) were the partners. After the death of Chhotelal G. Vyas, which occurred in the year 2001, his son petitioner no. 1 started claiming the said Firm as his Proprietorship Firm though after the death of Chhotelal G. Vyas his other sons and family members had interest over the properties of the Firm.

Further case is that one Firm known as M/s Bharat Packaging Industries, situated over the Plot No. A3, was a partnership Firm to which petitioner no. 1 was never the partner, still he, after the death of his father Chhotelal G. Vyas, claimed to be the proprietor of the said Firm though petitioner no. 1, one of the sons of Chhotelal G. Vyas, was never even a partner to that Firm. The said Firm was surrendered to AIADA by petitioner no. 1 claiming himself to be the sole proprietor and, thereby, the other partners or the family members of Chhotelal G. Vyas suffered injuries.

Further case is that one other Firm known as “Bharat Engineering and Refractories Industries, was a partnership Firm to which petitioner no. 1 had never been a partner, still he by claiming himself to be one of the proprietors made an application before AIADA for its transfer to another Firm, which has been formed by him alongwith his wife.

Further allegation is that petitioner no. 1 when appeared before the Women's Commission in a case which was lodged by the complainantthe mother of petitioner no. 1, made statement before the Women's Commission that he is trying to revive the Industries, whereas he submitted an application before AIADA to the effect that he has formed a new partnership Firm consisting of petitioner no. 1, Ram Swarup Goyel , Binod Kumar Bhukania and Rakesh Bali and all these mischief was done by petitioner no. 1 after taking away the documents relating to those Firms surreptitiously or stealing away those documents.

Further allegation is that the rent collected from the joint house properties was kept by the petitioners with themselves and misappropriated it and even petitioner no. 1 had assaulted the complainant and under the circumstances, allegation was made that the petitioners committed the offence of forgery, cheating as well as offence under Sections, 427, 504, 323, 506 IPC.

4. When cognizance of the offences was taken, the petitioners did appear and filed an application under Section 245 Cr.P.C for discharge, which was rejected. Against that order, a revision was preferred before the Sessions Judge, which also got dismissed and all those orders have been challenged before this Court. While the matter was pending, even the charges were framed, which order was also challenged.

5. Mr. Indrajeet Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that accepting the entire allegations made in the complaint to the effect that the petitioners claimed the partnership Firm as his proprietorship Firm, to be true, no offence is made out either of forgery or cheating as the petitioners have never misrepresented to the complainant, rather petitioner no. 1, who was having interest in the properties, simply claimed to be the proprie