JUDGMENT :

Tribhuvan Dahiya, J.

All these petitions are being decided together as the issue involved in all these pertains to the criminal complaint case no.445-1, dated 24.12.2007, titled Ram Niwas Agrawal v. Narinder Singh Lamba and others, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 218 and 506 of IPC, pending before the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi. For brevity, the facts are being taken from CRM-M-1340-2011, which has been filed for setting aside the said criminal complaint, Annexure P-10, as also the order dated 02.11.2010, Annexure P-1, whereby the petitioners have been summoned to face trial for the aforementioned offences.

2. Briefly, the facts relevant to decide these petitions are:

2.1. In 1970 the dealership of retail petroleum outlet M/s Sukhbir Brothers was reconstituted with M.S. Lamba and P.K. Chaudhury as partners, as Sukhbir was going out of the dealership. After the reconstitution, the name of dealership was changed to M/s Haryana Auto Service. In 1976, one of the partners, M.S. Lamba, died and the other one, P.K. Chaudhury, resigned from the partnership. Accordingly, on 17.06.1976, with the consent of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short, 'BPCL'), the dealership was again reconstituted by inducting Sudesh Lamba (daughter-in-law of deceased M.S. Lamba), Subhash Chand Goyal, and Ram Niwas Agrawal/respondent no.1/complainant.

2.2. The complainant vide letter dated 25.04.1994 informed the BPCL about a dispute between partners of the dealership firm M/s Haryana Auto Service which occurred in 1987. He alleged threats by other partners to oust him from the firm's ownership, as also changing the name of partners in the income tax returns without obtaining permission from BPCL, and asked the officials to take action against the other two partners. The BPCL issued a show cause notice, dated 05.05.1997, Annexure P-2, to all the partners, to which replies dated 29.05.1997 and 30.05.1997, Annexure P-3, were submitted by the complainant and Subhash Chand Goyal.

2.3. On coming to know about the dissolution of partnership deed, dated 05.10.1988, executed amongst the aforesaid three partners, Director (Marketing) of BPCL, Hisar, vide letter dated 18.09.2000, Annexure P-5, informed Director (M), Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, that there was difference in the signatures on dissolution deed and dealership agreement, therefore, it would not be possible for the BPCL to re-constitute the dealership unless resignation letter from the complainant, and a formal request for reconstitution from the existing partners were received. In response to this letter, a direction was received from the Ministry, vide letter dated 08.02.2001, Annexure P-6, not to initiate any action for termination of retail outlet dealership till it was proved in a Court of law as to whether the dissolution deed was forged or not, and whether signatures thereupon had been obtained under duress. On 15.01.2002, another letter was received by BPCL, Hisar, from the Ministry regarding reconstitution of the firm, Annexure P-7. On receipt of the instructions from the Ministry and request of the remaining partners, Subhash Chand Goyal and Sudesh Lamba, the dealership of M/s Haryana Auto Service was reconstituted under the partnership of these two with effect from 05.10.1988. This was done keeping in view the dissolution of partnership deed, dated 05.10.1988, whereby the complainant had resigned from partnership. Later, in view of the resignation of Sudesh Lamba from the partnership, the dealership was again reconstituted in the name of Subhash Chand Goyal as the sole proprietor with effect from 04.03.2005, Annexure P-8.

2.4. The complainant, thereupon, filed a complaint before the police, dated 20.12.2005, Annexure P-9, alleging that he was forcibly ousted from the petrol pump by other partners in 1987. It was also stated therein that he met Territorial Manager (TM) of the BPCL, R.K. Singhal/petitioner no.3 in CRM-M-2166-2011, and request