- (1.) The conspectus of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and oozing out, from the record, is that, complainant Dalip Singh son of Bakhsu Ram respondent No. 2 (for brevity "the complainant") was the owner and in possession of the land in question. His real brother, Dayapal Singh (petitioner No. 1) is working as Head Constable in Haryana Police. He hatched a criminal conspiracy with his others co-accused Vinod Kumar and Shyam Lal and got executed a false & fictitious agreement to sell dated 5.10.2007 (Annexure P2), by virtue of which, the land belonging to the complainant was illegally shown to have been sold for a consideration amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- in favour of petitioner No. 1 and an amount of Rs. 5 lacs was received by him (complainant) as earnest money. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail, in all, according to the complainant that petitioners-accused dishonestly cheated him by impersonation, committed a forgery, prepared & used the false documents as genuine for the purpose of cheating and deceived him in the manner described hereinbefore. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioners-accused, by means of FIR No. 63 dated 17.4.2009 (Annexure P1) on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B read with Section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani.
(2.) The petitioners did not feel satisfied with the registration of the criminal case and preferred the instant petition to quash the FIR (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC.
(3.) The case set up by the petitioners, in brief in so far as relevant, was that prima-facie, no case under the indicated offences is made out against them. The matter is purely of a civil nature, which is subject matter of civil suit between the parties. Their innocence is proved from another agreement dated 16.9.2008 (Annexure P3), the application (Annexure P4) written by the complainant to the District Town Planner (in short "the DTP"), the reply (Annexure P5) received by him from the DTP, statement (Annexure P6), the report dated 7.10.2010 (Annexure P7) of DSP and the copy of order dated 18.8.2010 (Annexure P9) etc. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioners sought to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto as depicted hereinabove.;