Sanjay Kumar Gupta ORDER
Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Through the instant petition filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., petitioner seeks quashment of complaint filed by respondent No. 1 under Sections 166, 167, 467, 468 and 471 RPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Thannamandi and also quashment of the order dated 05.11.2015, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Thannamandi, by virtue of which process has been issued against the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 to 6, herein.
3. In this petition, it has been stated that respondent No. 1 is nephew (brother's son) of the petitioner. It is stated that apart from other landed property, the grandfather of the petitioner and his brother was owner and in possession of land measuring 05 Kanals 05 Marlas in Kharsa No. 688 situated at Badha Kanna, Tehsil Thannamandi, District, Rajouri. The father of the petitioner inherited his share in the ancestral property land measuring 02 Kanals and 12 and half Marlas, which was further devolved to the petitioner and his brothers. The share of the petitioner came to be 17 Marlas and 03 sarsai. Similarly, respondent No. 1 and his brother also got the share of their father. It is further stated that all the stakeholders of the land measuring 05 Kanals 05 Marlas situated at Khasra No. 688,(except father of the petitioner and respondent No. 1) had migrated to Pakistan and settled there and had expired.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that none of the surviving legal heirs of the stakeholders, who had migrated to Pakistan have claimed any right over the property situated in Khasra No. 688, therefore, a virasat intiqal was attested on 07.03.2011, with respect to land measuring 05 Kanals 05 Marlas in favour of the petitioner and his brothers as well as his brother's sons, i.e., respondent No. 1/complainant and his brothers. The said mutation was attested on the representation of respondent No. 1's real brother and the petitioner had no role at all in getting the mutation attested. It is stated that the petitioner's uncle (brother of petitioner's father) was the maternal grandfather of respondent No. 1 and he died in 1950. The maternal grandfather of respondent No. 1 had no share in Khasra No. 688, so respondent No. 1 does not have any right title, interest or claim over the share of his maternal grandfather.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent No. 1/complainant with a mala fide intention to grab the share of petitioner had tried to dispossess the petitioner by manipulating the entries in the revenue record and has resorted to malicious criminal complaint to somehow grab the share of the petitioner. It is contended that the allegations as made in the complaint is that the petitioner has conspired with the revenue authorities and got a mutation dated 07.03.2011 attested in his favour. It is further contended that the petitioner has no role in getting the mutation attested and it was Amjad Parvez (complainant's brother), who had applied for the mutation of the land bearing Khasra No. 688 and even if it is assumed that there is dispute between the parties, the same is civil in nature.
6. The petitioner had earlier filed a suit for declaration/partition of the land falling under various Khasra numbers including Khasra No. 688 total measuring 80 Kanals is the proprietary land of the petitioner as well as brothers and mother of respondent No. 1. Thereafter, a compromise was entered into between the petitioner and those persons, on which, a decree was passed by the court below. On the basis of the said compromise, the learned civil court has specifically recorded in the judgment that the petitioner and his brothers and mother of respondent No. 1 are co-sharers in all Khasra numbers of disputed land including under Khasra No. 688. The said compromise deed was executed on 31.09.2012 and judgment was rendered on 03.12.2012. The complain........