JUDGMENT

Pankaj Jain, J. - By way of present petition, I intend to dispose of aforesaid two petitions filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to 'Code') seeking quashing of the complaint No. CRM-125-2020 titled as 'Pritam Kaur vs. Mandeep Singh and another' alongwith impugned order dated 23.07.2020 passed by JMIC, Dera Bassi (Annexure P-2).

2. CRM-M-25987-2020 has been preferred at the behest of Labh Kaur (Accused No.4). The other three accused(s) have preferred CRM-M-24352-2020. Since both the petitions are arising out of same complaint and are directed against the same order dated 23.07.2020, they are being decided together.

3. There is no major dispute w.r.t. the facts leading to the present lis. Respondent-complainant Pritam Kaur preferred application under Section 156(3) of the Code before SDJM claiming that she is Khewatdar in a land admeasuring 10 Bighas, 10 Biswas and 15 Biswasies. She inherited the said land from his late husband Sardar Balbir Singh who was co-sharer. It is claimed that she alongwith her sons are in possession as owner of front portion of the land and are settled out of India. In order to avoid litigation, they preferred partition application before the Revenue Authorities which was finally decided on 28.01.2015 and sanad taqsim was issued and she alongwith her sons were put in possession of their exclusive Khata. She claims that after respondents tried to change the nature of land during the pendency of the partition proceedings, she filed injunction suit titled as 'Pritam Kaur and others vs. Labh Singh'. The same was decreed in her favour vide judgment and decree dated 25.08.2015. She claims that on her visit to India in January 2020, she found that a person named Gurjant Singh @ Janta was threatening her possession claiming to have purchased the property in question from one Labh Kaur w/o Harnek Singh i.e. accused No.3. It has been further asserted that Gurjant Singh @ Janta is in possession of one Will dated 15.06.1988 alleged to have been executed by Gurdit Singh. It is claimed by the complainant that the said Will is a forged and fabricated document. Death certificate of Gurdit Singh is also forged. Labh Kaur who is being projected as sister of Gurdit Singh who executed sale deed dated 31.10.2019 in favour of accused, had in fact no relationship with said Gurdit Singh. The gravamen of the complaint filed by the complainant is that the accused have created a forged and fabricated Will of Gurdit Singh in favour of Labh Kaur and on the basis thereof, they are wrongly asserting their title over the property in question.

4. On receiving the petition under Section 156(3) of the Code, Magistrate passed the following order on 16.06.2020:-

'Pritam Kaur vs. Mandeep Singh

Present: Sh. Mukesh Gandhi Advocate for complainant.

Complaint presented today. It be registered by the concerned Ahlmad. Let report of SHO, Police Station Dera Bassi be called for 24.06.2020."

5. The report pursuant to aforesaid order was received on 15.07.2020, when the following order was passed:-

'Present: Sh. Mukesh Gandhi Advocate for complainant.

File put up before me being Duty Magistrate. Status report from the SHO received. Now to come up on 22.07.2020 for consideration. File be sent to the concerned court."

6. On 22.07.2020, the matter was adjourned to 23.07.2020 on request. On 23.07.2020, trial Court ordered registration of FIR against accused No.1 to 4 for offences punishable under Sections 417, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to 'IPC'). It is this order which is subject matter of challenge in the present petitions.

7. While issuing notice of motion in CRM-M-24352-2020, this Court observed as under on 26.08.2020:-

'CRM-20882-2020:

Allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions.

CRM-M-24352-2020:

Ld. Counsel for the petitioners submits, inter alia, that the Ld. JMIC, Dera Bassi, had initially called for the Report of the SHO of Police Station Dera Bassi, on the compl