A criminal complaint for forgery and cheating cannot be sustained merely because a party enters into a property transaction despite a defective title originating from previously declared invalid documents; the essential ingredients of fraudulent inducement or creation of a false document must be independently established.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed for seeking quashing of impugned order dated 08.10.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali as well as the order dated 13.02.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kharar whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner bearing CRM-195-2022 dated 01.09.2022 titled as “Baljit Singh and another Vs. Ld. SHO and others” had been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that Raunak Singh son of Narain Singh, who is father of Sukhwant Kaur (wife of petitioner No.1 and mother of petitioner No.2) was owner in possession of the land situated at Village Daun, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar. Sukhwant’s mother i.e. wife of Raunak Singh had precedeased him and Sukhwant Kaur was the only legal heir of Raunak Singh. Later, one Krewanama dated 17.02.1988 was allegedly executed with one Balwinder Kaur, daughter of Iqbal Singh son of Chanan Singh and on the basis of the aforesaid forged document, one sale deed dated 01.02.1988 in respect of land bearing Khasra No.248(1 Kanal 2 Marlas) was transferred in favour of Balwinder Kaur, a General Power of Attorney, bearing Vasika No.236 dated 08.04.1988 executed by Raunak Singh in favour of said Balwinder Kaur. Eventually sale deed dated 20.04.1988 bearing Vasika No.348 of an area measuring 24 Kanals 08 Marlas was executed by Balwinder Kaur in favour of Lt. Col. Iqbal Singh Deol i.e. the father of private respondents and another sale deed dated 20.04.1988 bearing Vasika No.350 was allegedly executed by Balwinder Kaur in favour of one Jarnail Singh for an area measuring 18 Kanals 17 Marlas situated in Village Daun, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar.

3. Raunak Singh i.e. father of Sukhwant Kaur (wife of petitioner No.1 and mother of petitioner No.2) filed a civil suit for declaration to the effect that alleged Krewanama dated 17.02.1988 with Balwinder Kaur and the sale deed dated 01.03.1988, the General Power of Attorney dated 08.04.1988 and sale deed dated 20.04.1988 be deemed illegal, null and void, inoperative and without consideration. It is contended that the aforesaid civil suit was decreed by the Civil Court by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kharar vide judgment and decree dated 19.01.2002 and the said documents were declared as illegal, null and void and the defendants therein were directed to handover the possession to Raunak Singh (father in law of petitioner No.1 and maternal grandfather of petitioner No.2 herein).

4. The aforesaid judgment and decree dated 19.01.2002 was challenged by the respondents before the Court of District Judge. The appeal was partly accepted by the Additional District Judge qua issuance of mandatory injunction and dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding that the Krewanama and the other sale deeds as well as General Power of Attorney which were allegedly executed by Raunak Singh were illegal, null and void. RSA No.666 of 2008 was also dismissed vide order dated 10.12.2012 by the High Court. The said judgment and decree has since then attained finality.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that Sukhwant Kaur (wife of petitioner No.1 and mother of petitioner No.2) unfortunately expired on 03.10.2021, hence, the petitioners are the only legal heirs of Sukhwant Kaur and thus entitled to succeed to the aforesaid property. They came to know that respondents No.3 & 4 have hatched a criminal conspiracy in order to defeat the rights of the petitioners and that notwithstanding the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2002 passed by the