JUDGMENT

Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral)

The petitioners through instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C are seeking quashing of FIR No. 161 dated 21.05.2010 under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC registered at Police Station Rania, District Sirsa and consequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The FIR in question is outcome of litigation between family members, with respect to distribution of land of one relative who died issueless. Parties are contesting since 1976. This petition vide order dated 29.07.2013 was ordered to be heard alongwith RSA No. 407 of 1995 and 1550 of 1995.

Brief Facts:

3. Before adverting with the issues involved and arguments of both sides, it would be inevitable to look at pedigree of the disputing parties. The pedigree table is reproduced as below:-

4. The brief facts emerging from the record and necessary for the adjudication of present petition are that Rampat (deceased) executed Will dated 19.2.1968 with respect to his agricultural land measuring 170 Kanal and 2 Marla in favour of respondents No. 2 and his brothers. The petitioners challenged the Will by way of civil suit which came to be decreed in their favour vide judgment and decree dated 29.8.1979. Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 29.8.1979, declared aforesaid Will invalid and made petitioners entitled to half share of the aforesaid land.

An appeal by family members of respondent No. 2 came to be filed before Additional District Judge, Sirsa assailing decree dated 29.8.1979. During the pendency of the appeal, a compromise came to be arrived at between the contesting parties. According to compromise dated 6.8.1980, 62 kanal land came in the share of petitioners. The Appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 01.05.1980 passed compromise decree which came to be challenged before this Court in RSA No. 2330 of 1981. This Court vide order dated 29.10.1984 upheld the compromise decree, however, remanded the matter to the extent of rights of two persons who were contesting the matter before courts below but were not party to the compromise.

The Additional District Judge, Sirsa after remand passed judgment and decree dated 6.8.1985 and according to which, half share of the suit land came in the share of father of respondents and his sibling. 62 kanal land came in the share of petitioners. The rest 23 kanal and 01 marla came in the share of respondents No. 2 and his brothers.

5. The respondents No. 2 and his brother vide Civil Suit dated 12.09.1985 challenged compromise judgment(s) and decree(s) dated 1.5.1980 and 6.8.1985 passed by Additional District Judge on the ground that compromise decree has been passed in violation of mandate of Order 32, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "CPC") because at the time of compromise, they were minor.

5.1 Senior Sub Judge dismissed suit of respondent No. 2 and his brother vide judgment and decree dated 12.2.1990. The respondents No. 2 and his brother filed appeal before Additional District Judge which came to be allowed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 16.12.1994.

5.2 The petitioners preferred aforementioned two regular second appeals before this court, assailing judgment and decree dated 16.12.1994 whereby compromise, judgment and decree (s) dated 01.05.1980 and 06.08.1985 passed by Additional District Judge have been set aside.

6. The petitioners during the pendency of RSA before this court sold 62 kanal of land which was in their possession. The land has been sold to family members who are party to civil litigation. The respondent No. 2 has lodged afore-mentioned FIR against the petitioners alleging that act of sale of land amounts to commission of offence punishable under different Sections