JUDGMENT

Aman Chaudhary, J.

This common order shall dispose of the above-mentioned four petitions, which have been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No.123 dated 19.03.2009, registered under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471 506 and 120B IPC at Police Station Sadar, Amritsar, Annexure P-1 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Learned counsel for submit that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the case, whereas, no offence, under Sections as mentioned in the FIR, is made out against them. It is apparent that the dispute in the present case is with regard to plot of 200 sq. yards sold to the complainant-respondent No.2 by Sita, which was in the joint holding with Raj Karni. Petitioner-Kavita Sharma had a power of attorney of her mother- Raj Karni in her favour regarding her land. Petitioner-Pankaj Kumar on the basis of the power attorney given by petitioner-Kavita Sharma sold two plot of 100 sq. yards each to petitioner-Sukhwinder Singh, and one Meenu and Hans Raj, who further sold to petitioner-Kuldip Kumar. Petitioner-Kavita Sharma has been authorised to sell the land of her mother, as power of attorney was executed in her favour being a daughter but her statement has not been recorded. It was a case of civil dispute, but still the present FIR has been registered. Even in the final report filed under Section 173 CrPC shows that no investigation has been carried out but merely allegations made in FIR have been reiterated.

3. Learned State counsel submits that challan has been presented in the case and three accused were found to be innocent during investigation.

4. Complainant-respondent No.2 appears in person and submits that he is the bona fide purchaser for consideration from the rightful owner of the land and is in possession of the land in question. The civil suit filed against the complainant was dismissed and since no appeal was preferred, the same has attained finality. He, thus, has no objection for quashing of the FIR, however, the same should not have any affect on his rights.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

6. It would be profitable to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj (2018) 7 SCC 581, wherein it was observed thus:

"19. A close scrutiny of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that, Section 463 defines the offence of forgery, while Section 464 substantiates the same by providing an answer as to when a false document could be said to have been made for the purpose of committing an offence of forgery under Section 463, IPC. Therefore, we can safely deduce that Section 464 defines one of the ingredients of forgery i.e., making of a false document. Further, Section 465 provides punishment for the commission of the offence of forgery. In order to sustain a conviction under Section 465, first it has to be proved that forgery was committed under Section 463, implying that ingredients under Section 464 should also be satisfied. Therefore unless and untill ingredients under Section 463 are satisfied a person cannot be convicted under Section 465 by solely relying on the ingredients of Section 464, as the offence of forgery would remain incomplete.

20. xx xx xx

21. It is observed in the case Md. Ibrahim and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr., (2009) 8 SCC 751 that-

"a person is said to have made a 'false document', if

(i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or

(ii) he altered or tampered a document; or

(iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses."

22. In Md. Ibrahim (supra), this Court