The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 of the IPC and the significance of final judgments in determining entitlement to property shares.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.

1. This order shall dispose of above referred two petitions as they arise out of the same complaint and identical issues are involved therein.

2. The petitioners are invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of Complaint No.11RT/2013 dated 20.01.2011 pending before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura for the offences under Sections 420, 463, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 25.03.2015 (Annexure P-4 in CRM-M-43470-2017) for offence under Section 420 of the IPC passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajpura.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner in CRM-M-18049-2017, while giving a brief background of the case inter alia submits that the dispute essentially revolves around the land of the grand father of the petitioner, late Faujdar Singh, measuring 67 bighas and 9 marlas (hereinafter referred to as 'land'), out of his total estate measuring 149 bighas and 2 biswas. Late Faujdar Singh had performed two marriages. From his first marriage with Balwant Kaur, two children were born i.e. late Surinder Pal Singh (father of the petitioner) and Sukhbir Kaur. After Balwant Kaur's death, Faujdar Singh married again. Two sons, Kuldeep Singh and Sant Parkash Singh Sandhu (complainant) were born from his second marriage with Satwant Kaur. It has been alleged in the complaint (Annexure P-1) that petitioner Saleena and her mother in connivance with the other accused, transferred share in the land to the extent of 1/4th to the other accused (petitioners in CRM-M-43470-2017), even though their entitlement was only to the extent of 1/5th share. After the demise of the petitioner's grandfather, the complainant propounded his father's Khangi Will of the year 1985 and claimed ownership of land measuring 67 bighas and 9 marlas as per the Will and applied for sanctioning mutation in his favour accordingly. Further, it was a matter of record that the authenticity of the aforesaid Khangi Will was challenged by the petitioner and her mother and learned Assistant Collector First Grade, Rajpura, who, after questioning the genuineness of the Will, ordered mutation to be sanctioned by way of natural succession. Accordingly, Halka Patwar, Banur recorded mutation No.10424, on the basis of inheritance of property through natural succession, wherein petitioner Saleena and her mother were held entitled to 1/4th share. In support, learned senior counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the jamabandi of the year 2001-02 (annexed as Annexure P-3 in CRM-M-18049-2017), which reflects that the petitioner and her mother were held entitled to share to the extent of 1/4th and it was on the basis of this they had then sold their share to the accused i.e. petitioners in CRM-M-43470-2017.

4. Learned senior counsel in the aforesaid context prays for quashing of the complaint (Annexure P-1) by urging that a perusal of the allegations levelled in the complaint does not disclose the commission of any offence and thus, it deserves to be quashed. In fact, a civil dispute pertaining to a family property between members of the family i.e. petitioners on one side and the complainant on the other side has been given a criminal colour, just to exert pressure upon the petitioners. The petitioner has been summoned to face trial under Section 420 of the IPC by the Trial Court, however, it has been asserted that the essential ingredients to attract the mischief of offence for cheating under Section 420 of the IPC is clearly amiss in the case in hand, even if for the sake of arguments, averments made in the complaint are taken to be gospel truth. Still further, learned Trial Court has also erred in passing the summoning order without holding a preliminary inquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. which is a mandatory requirement. Learned senior counsel has contend