JUDGMENT :

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the criminal complaint titled as “Parvaiz Mohinia vs Balraj Singh and others”, bearing CIS No. CRM/1498/2018, filed on 18.12.2018, along with summoning order dated 10.09.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bathinda, and also for setting aside the impugned order dated 09.09.2022, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the summoning order has been dismissed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, as well as for quashing of all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent Parvaiz Mohinia filed a complaint under Section 200 read with Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of an FIR against accused persons, namely (1) Balraj Singh son of Buta Singh, (2) Balkaran Singh son of Buta Singh, (3) Damanjit Singh son of Daljit Singh, (4) Neeraj Kumar, Clerk, office of DTO Sri Muktsar Sahib, (5) ASI Bhalla Singh No.1566, and (6) Sandeep Singh Bhatti, SHO PS Sadar Bathinda, alleging commission of offences under Sections 166, 193, 218, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. Vide order dated 18.12.2018, no prima facie case was found for issuance of directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and accordingly the application was treated as a complaint under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C.

3. The brief facts of the complaint are that on 01.01.2017, the sister of the complainant met with an accident at Bathinda due to the rash and negligent driving of accused No.2-Balkaran Singh (present petitioner), who was driving a Honda City car bearing registration No. PB-03J-4738 owned by accused No.1-Balraj Singh. The said vehicle was taken into custody by the police on 01.01.2017 itself and FIR No. 02 dated 03.01.2017 was registered. Thereafter, accused No.1 obtained the vehicle on sapurdari vide order dated 15.02.2017. It is alleged that subsequently, in the written statement filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar, accused No.1 falsely stated that he was not the owner of the said vehicle on the date of the accident and instead claimed that the same was owned by accused No.3, namely Damanjit Singh. It is further alleged that thereafter the accused persons, in connivance with each other and with officials of the Transport Department and police officials of Bathinda, illegally and fraudulently prepared forged documents showing transfer of ownership of the vehicle from accused No.1 to accused No.3, despite the vehicle being case property in police custody, which could not have been disposed of without permission of the competent Court. It is alleged that such acts were done with malafide intention to cause wrongful loss to the complainant’s sister. It is further alleged that false statements were made on oath before the Court, fabricated documents were prepared, and offences of cheating, forgery, perjury and criminal conspiracy were committed. Despite the complainant approaching the police authorities, no action was taken, which constrained him to file the present complaint.

4. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda, vide impugned order dated 10.09.2019, summoned accused No.1 to 6 for offences under Sections 166, 193, 218, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B IPC.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid summoning order dated 10.09.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda, three separate revision petitions came to be filed, one by Damanjit Singh, second jointly by Balraj Singh and Balkaran Singh, and the third jointly by SI Bhalla Singh-petitioner No.1 and Sandeep Singh Bhatti, Inspector-petitioner No.2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide impugned order dated 09.09.2022, partly allowed the revision petitions. It was held, upon appraisal of the material on record, that no prima facie case was made out against Damanjit Singh, as the record reveale