1. The petitioners, through the medium of present petition, have challenged order dated 10.08.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (3 Additional Munsiff), Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as the "trial Magistrate"), as also FIR No.32/2018 for offences under S.420, S.468, S.471 and S.120 - B RPC registered with Police Station, Crime Branch, Kashmir.

2. It appears that respondent Nos.3 and 4 (hereinafter referred to as "the complainants") filed an application under S.156(3) of the CrPC before the learned trial Magistrate seeking a direction for registration of FIR against the petitioners herein and two more persons, namely, Rakesh Kumar Sharma and Rajesh Kumar. In the application it was alleged that respondent No.3 herein had purchased a three storeyed house with shop in its ground floor in the year 1996 by virtue of sale deed dated 1st November, 1996, executed by respondent No.4 herein in his capacity as Attorney Holder of erstwhile owner, Smt. Chandra Kanta, who is a resident of Jammu. It was pleaded that said Smt. Chandra Kanta had executed a Power of Attorney dated 16.04.1996 in favour of respondent No.4, which was witnesseth by Rakesh Kumar Sharma and Rajesh Kumar Sharma, the sons of Smt. Chandra Kanta. It was further stated that the complainants took over physical possession of the property in question but petitioner No.2 herein, who was holding possession of the shop in the said purchased building as a tenant, proved to be a bad tenant. It was also pleaded that after some negotiations, petitioner No.2 executed a rent deed in respect of the said shop with respondent No.3 herein.

3. It was alleged in the application that petitioner No.2 hatched a criminal conspiracy with petitioner No.1 along with Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma and Rajesh Kumar Sharma with a view to grab the rented shop and filed a suit seeking a declaration that the rent deed executed by petitioner No.2 in favour of respondent No.3 is and void. It was also pleaded in the application that petitioner No.2 managed to influence a stranger to the property, namely, Shanti Saroop, to file an application for impleadment in the said suit, which was allowed in terms of order dated 07.10.2004 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.56/2004.

4. It has been further submitted that after the death of Shanti Saroop, Rajesh Kumar managed a Power of Attorney on behalf of legal heirs of Shanti Saroop in his favour. Thus, according to the complainants, the petitioners along with Rakesh Kumar Sharma and Rajesh Kumar Sharma have indulged in criminal conspiracy to grab the shop in question by deceitful means. It has been further pleaded that petitioner No.1, who had no interest in the subject matter of the suit filed by petitioner No.2, intentionally and deliberately put his signature on the original sale deed filed by respondent No.3 in the said suit during admission and denial of documents.

5. It has been contended in the application that the petitioners along with their associates have entered into a criminal conspiracy and resorted to deceitful means with a view to grab the shop of respondent No.3 and that they have threatened the complainants of dire consequences.

6. The aforesaid application was considered by the learned trial Magistrate, whereafter a report was sought from Police Station, Maisuma, Srinagar. After obtaining the report from the police, the learned trial Magistrate observed that there are grounds to register a cognizable case and to proceed ahead with the investigation. Accordingly, SHO, Police Station, Crime Branch, Kashmir, was directed to enquire about the case and proceed with registration of a cognizable case if the same is made out. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the learned trial Magistrate, the impugned FIR came to be registered by Police Station, Crime Branch, Kashmir.

7. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order and the impugned FIR on the grounds that the learned trial Magistrate has, without appreciating the re