(1.) This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.2 of 2018 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Ss. 120B, 193, 466, 467, 468, 471, 420 of IPC, as against the petitioners.
(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitions are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The allegations as against the petitioners are that they created forged documents such as Commissioner of Oath certificate and Notary certificate to grab the property of the defacto complainant. He further submitted that the defacto complaint lodged complaint in Crime No. 1 of 2012, with the same set of allegations and the allegations made in the present complaint are only subsequent information relating to the same incident. Therefore, the subsequent FIR is not maintainable and without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.2 of 2018 for the offences under Ss. 120B, 193, 466, 467, 468, 471, 420 of IPC, as against the petitioners. To support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the judgement reported in 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048 in the case of T.T.Antony Vs. State of Kerala and others as follows :-
(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/defacto complainant filed counter and submitted that the petitioners and other accused have already involved a crime of cheating and fabrication of documents and therefore the defacto complainant lodged complaint in Crime No.1 of 2012 and the same is pending. He further submitted that to escape from the above case, the petitioners and other accused have further committed various offences by manipulating the Court documents and played fraud upon the Courts. Therefore the present complaint has been lodged and there are specific overtact as against the each of the petitioners. He further submitted that it is not subsequent information relating to the first FIR and the present complaint has been registered on different set of allegations. He also relied upon the judgment reported in (2018) 9 SCC 440 in the case of Om Prakash Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others as follows :-