Vijay Bishnoi, J. - (1.) THIS criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing the FIR No. 412/2014 dated 03.11.2014 of Police Station, Kotwali, District Jaisalmer for the offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 -B IPC.
(2.) THE impugned FIR has been lodged at the instance of respondent No. 2 with the allegation that the father of the respondent No. 2 has executed a special power of attorney in favour of petitioner No. 1 while authorising the petitioner No. 1 to sell the agriculture land belonging to the father of respondent No. 2 situated at Chak No. 1 SLD in Muraba No. 12/25 to one Fateh Singh S/o. Nihal Singh. It is contended that later on when Fateh Singh S/o. Nihal Singh did not pay the amount as agreed, his father had asked the petitioner No. 1 not to execute any sale -deed in favour of Fateh Singh S/o. Nihal Singh in relation to that agriculture land owned by him. It is alleged that in the year 2011, the petitioner No. 1 had removed the name of Fateh Singh S/o. Nihal Singh in para No. 5 of the special power of attorney and written the name of petitioner No. 2 - Balvindar Singh S/o. Sher Singh on it and, thereafter, sold the agriculture land to the petitioner No. 2 -Balvindar Singh S/o. Sher Singh on the basis of forged power of attorney. It is further alleged that the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/ - received by the petitioner No. 1 from petitioner No. 2 has not been paid to father of the complainant -respondent No. 2. After receiving the said complaint, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer has forwarded the same to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the police has started investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in fact the correction in the para No. 5 of the special power of attorney was done by the petitioner No. 1 on instruction of the father of the complainant -respondent No. 2 and the whole money has also been paid to them. It is contended that the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR are false and, therefore, same is liable to be quashed.
(3.) PER contra, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that from bare reading of the contents of the impugned FIR, prima facie offence is made out against the petitioner, therefore, no case for quashing of impugned FIR is made out. It is also submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that whether the correction in the special power of attorney was done on instruction of father of the complainant -respondent No. 2 or whether the father of the complainant -respondent No. 2 has received the whole amount is a matter of investigation and defence of the petitioners cannot be taken into consideration at this stage.;