Mr. Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners.

2. Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1.

3. Mr. Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.

4. Heard.

5. Present petition is filed invoking section 482 of Code of Criminal of Procedure assailing the cognizance order dated 30.12.2003, chargesheet dated 12.10.2003 in case crime no. 124 of 2002 (30 of 2003) under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 504, 506 IPC. Further prayer was made by the petitioners to quash the entire criminal proceedings on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in criminal case no. 2728 of 2003 (State Vs. Kanwar Singh and others).

6. Brief facts of the present case are that petitioner no. 2 is son of petitioner no. 1. Name of petitioner no. 1 was mutated in the revenue record vide order dated 07.01.1992 passed by the Record Officer. Respondent no. 2, co-owner of the petitioner no. 1, moved an application for recalling the mutation order in favour of the petitioner no. 1 vide order dated 07.01.1992. Learned Record Officer, Dehradun vide its judgment dated 30.08.1994 rejected the application for recall of respondent no. 2 herein saying that petitioner no. 1 name was mutated in place of Preetu. It is further observed by the Record Officer that petitioner no. 1 name was never recorded/mutated for any share of the respondent no.2 herein. Petitioner no. 1 vide registered sale deed dated 26.02.2001 transferred/sold the land in favour of Dharam Singh and Vishal Vohra (third party of this petition).

7. After the aforesaid sale deed respondent no.2 herein moved an application under section 156(3) Code of Criminal of Procedure against the present petitioners and Dharam Singh and Vishal Vohra (Purchasers of land from Kanwar Singh) and Ganga Prasad Uniyal. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun vide order dated 23.10.2002 directed the P.S. – Vikas Nagar to register First Information Report and investigate the matter. Pursuant to order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Information Report case crime no. 124 of 2002 was registered on 25.10.2002 against the petitioners and three others, as mentioned in the application under section 156(3) Code of Criminal of Procedure.

8. The main contention in the First Information Report is that petitioner no.1 Kanwar Singh is the co-owner with the complainant over the property in dispute having half share therein, however, he with the intent to grab the property of respondent no. 2 herein sold the property in favour of Dharam Singh and Vishal Vohra vide sale deed dated 26.02.2001. It is further alleged in the First Information Report and application under section 156(3) that in the mutation proceedings pursuant to the sale deed executed by the petitioner no. 1 herein purchasers and sellers (petitioner no. 1 herein) with the collusion of Ganga Prasad Uniyal prepared affidavits of no objection in the name and under signature of respondent no. 2 and his brother. It is further alleged that neither respondent no. 2 nor his brother ever signed no objection/affidavits, hence, petitioners and purchasers are guilty of fraud, forgery and preparation of false papers (affidavits).

9. Police/Investigating Agency, after investigation, submitted impugned chargesheet dated 12.10.2003 against the sellers/petitioners herein and opted not to challan the purchasers. Chargesheet was submitted under sections 420, 461, 468, 471, 120B, 504, 506 IPC. Learned Magistrate vide impugned order dated 30.12.2003 took cognizance thereon against the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved from the chargesheet and order taking cognizance petitioners have approached this court by invoking section 482 of Code of Criminal of Procedure.

10. First argument of Mr. Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioners is that this is a case of civil nature given colour of criminal offence, hence, entire criminal proceedings should be quashed. His second argument is that it is the purcha