The central legal point established in the judgment is that the lack of mens rea and the findings of the civil court and the police inquiry report influenced the court's decision to quash the criminal complaint against the petitioners.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.

1. Prayer in this petition is for quashing of criminal complaint No.51 dated 10.08.2009 (Annexure P9), filed under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B IPC as well as summoning order dated 02.08.2013 (Annexure-P11) and the order dated 12.08.2015 passed by the Revisional Court, dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioners against summoning order.

2. Brief facts of the case are that; respondent No.1-Bhagwant Kaur filed a criminal complaint against 8 persons. The petitioners Darshan Singh and Mohinder Singh were arrayed as accused No. 7 and 8 in the said complaint. The allegations in the complaint are that the husband of the complainant, i.e. Nardev Singh, died on 03.03.2009. The complainant has four children and one of her sons, namely, Hari Rattan Singh, is settled in USA and after 1987, he never returned back to India. One daughter of the complainant is also residing in USA, the 2nd daughter is residing in Chandigarh and the 4th child, i.e. son, Rattan Dev Singh, who was arrayed as accused No.3, is also an NRI and now is residing at Bathinda. Daughter of the complainant has lodged a compliant with the police in USA that his brother Hari Rattan Singh was missing. The said compliant was lodged in the year 1994 and in the year 2002, the police in USA has submitted a report that his whereabouts were not traceable. It is further alleged in the complaint that property of aforesaid son of the complainant, namely, Hari Rattan Singh, is in her possession and she is taking care of the said property. The other son of the complainant i.e. accused No.3-Rattan Dev Singh, in connivance with accused No. 7 and 8, has sold the land of the missing son of the complainant i.e Hari Rattan Singh, on the basis of a fake and forged GPA and said land has been purchased by accused No. 4 to 6. It is also stated that her son, i.e. accused no. 3, has also committed the same fraud with regard to other properties of Hari Rattan Singh situated at Bathinda and Mansa.

3. Complainant has given a complaint to the police on 22.05.2009 regarding the commission of offence by accused No. 3 to 8, however, no action was taken, as the police is influenced by her son-accused No.3. It is also stated that complainant filed a civil suit on 16.03.2009 regarding the land in dispute against the accused persons and accused No.3 has given a statement that he is going to effect compromise with the complainant and other sisters. It is further stated that the complainant made a written request to SSP, Barnala, on 22.05.2009 but no action was taken and the complaint was filed on 11.06.2009.

4. In the preliminary evidence, complainant herself appeared as CW-1 and also examined Nartesh Kaur as CW2, Jagtar Singh as CW3, Jarnail Singh as CW4 and Bant Singh as CW5. She has also placed on record copies of sale deeds No.445 and 446 and, thereafter, the evidence was closed.

5. Thereafter, the trial Court, vide impugned order dated 02.08.2013 summoned the accused persons, including the petitioners.

6. The petitioners filed a revision petition before the Revisional Court challenging the summoning order and the Revisional Court, vide its order dated 12.08.2015 dismissed the revision petition.

7. The present petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid two impugned orders.

8. Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are not the attesting witnesses of the GPA which was allegedly executed by Hari Rattan Singh in favouor of his brother-accused No.3, i.e. Rattan Dev Singh, and they are only attesting witnesses to the sale deed dated 29.04.2009 vide which accused No.3-Rattan Dev Singh had sold the property on the basis of aforesaid GPA in favour of accused No.4 to 6. It is further submitted that since accused No.3 was holding power of attorney of his own real brother, there was no reason to disbelieve that the said power of attorney was a fake document. It is also submitted that the petitioners are not the beneficiaries of th