(1.) Considered the submissions of learned senior counsel Mr.I. H. Saiyed with learned advocate Mr.Jayprakash Umot for the applicants and learned advocate Mr. Hakim for the private respondent No.2, as well as heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Mr. L. B. Dabhi for the respondent state.
(2.) The proceedings of the present application were filed seeking to set aside the FIR being (I) Crime Register No.I-71 of 2013 registered at Balasinor police station, Kheda. It was an FIR filed by the private respondent No.2-the original complainant alleging offences against the present applicants under sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
(3.) On going through the contents of the FIR, it appears that the dispute was in relation to the land and the mutation entries and the right to inherit the land amongst the family members. The respondent No.2 complainant happens to be a father, who claims that in respect of the lands mentioned in the FIR, he alone was entitled to succeed as owner and no other heir was liable to hold the land. He alleged that his son-the petitioner No.1 and others collided to create false documents and by obtaining false signatures wrongly represented in the proceedings under section 135(D) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code in relation to making of entries in the revenue record. It was on such basic premise and conduct that the FIR was filed alleging the offences as aforesaid.