JUDGMENT 1. -The accused-petitioners have filed this petition under S. 482 Cr.PC. seeking quashing of FIR No.259 of 19^7 of Police Station, Phagi District Jaipur for the offences under Sections 420,120-B. 467, 468 and 471 IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that one Sheonarain son of Raghunath Jat resident of Chandmakalan Police Station Phagi District Jaipur filed a complaint in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dudu District Jaipur against the accused-petitioners and one Ramsahay son of Ramchandra resident of Village Ratanpura that deceased Ramjeevan resident of village Chandmakalan was his Dharam- Bhai, who died four or five years ago and since then he is looking after ' his family. Deceased Ramjeevan owned and possessed some agricultural land, the details of which are mentioned in the complaint. It is alleged that accused-petitioners assured Ramjeevan that they would manage loan for him and on that assurance the accused-petitioners succeeded in obtaining a General power of attorney in favour of accused Mohru. It is further alleged that accused-petitioner Mohru got a sale deed executed in respect of the above land in favour of accused Ramsahay on 1.9.1993..He also got a sale deed executed again on 5.10.1995 in favour of Bherulal and Ramsahay in respect of a part of the above land belonging to deceased Ramjeevan. The serious allegation made by the complainant is that accused Mohru executed the above sale deed on 5.10.1995 in favour of above purchasers Bheurlal and Ramsahay even after the death of Ramjeevan. It was further alleged that in order to obtain loan in favour of Ramsahay, an application was also submitted Land Development Bank on the basis of the above forged sale deed on 11.1.1996. It is also alleged that though accused Rampyari was knowing that accused Ram Sahay does not belong to Koli Caste, she represented Ramsahay as a person belonging to Koli Caste. Even accused Rampyari also executed a document relating to the above loan in the above manner. 3. On receipt of this complaint, the learned Judicial Magistrate forwarded the same to the concerned S.H.O. for investigation under s. 156[3] Cr.PC. The S.H.O. registered a case against the accused-petitioners for the offences under sections 420, 120-B, 467,168 and 471 IPC and started investigation. Hence this misc. petition. 4. I have heard Mr. B.S. Chouhan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. The S.H.O. registered a case against the accused-petitioners for the offences under sections 420, 120-B, 467,168 and 471 IPC and started investigation. Hence this misc. petition. 4. I have heard Mr. B.S. Chouhan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. S.M. Podar, the learned Public Prosecutor the State and Mr. N.C. Choudhary, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant and have very carefully gone through the record of the case. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has assailed the above complaint as also registration of a criminal prosecution against the petitioners without any basis. He has contended that according to the death certificate issued by the Head Master, Govt. Primary School, Bisalu Tehsii Phagi District Jaipur, Ramjeevan died on 15.12.1995. He has submitted that the above Head Master was competent to issue the Death Certificate as per the provisions of S. 12 read with S'. 17 of the Birth and Death Registration Act, 1969. He has further contended that Mst. Kothi wife of deceased Ramjeevan also filed an affidavit in which she categorically stated that her husband voluntarily and willingly appointed Mohru Ram as has general power of attorney holder. She also stated that her husband died on 15.12.1995 and the Head Master also issued a Death Certificate. She also stated that her husband executed a sale deed for Rs. 50,000/-. The above sale deed was executed by accused Mohru with the consent of her husband. Learned counsel has therefore, submitted that a false FIR has been lodged against the accused- petitioner and no case is made out against them and hence, the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that after registration of a criminal case against the accused- petitioners, the matter has been investigated by the police and it was about to submit its report. He has also produced the case diary before me. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and have also very carefully gone through the material on record. 8. It may be stated here that the General Power of Attorney as well as two sale-deeds referred to above were registered. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has challenged the genuineness of the death certificate. He submitted that it was issued by the accused Sarpanch. 8. It may be stated here that the General Power of Attorney as well as two sale-deeds referred to above were registered. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has challenged the genuineness of the death certificate. He submitted that it was issued by the accused Sarpanch. It is not in dispute that the above Certificate was issued by the Head Master and he was competent to issue the same in accordance with sections 12 and 17 of the Birth and Death Registration Act, 1969. Hence, its genuineness cannot be doubted. 9. Moreover, Mst. Kothi wife of deceased Ramjeevan has supported the date of death as mentioned in the Death Certificate in her own affidavit. She has also supported the above two transactions as well as General Power of Attorney alleged to have been carried out by the accused with the consent of her husband. Hence, in my opinion from the material available on record, the allegations made in the complaint are not substantiated. The accused petitioner Mohru had the authority to execute the Sale deeds on the strength of the General Power of Attorney executed by deceased Ram Jeevan. Even from the perusal of the Death Certificate, it also does not appear to be correct that the sale deed dated 5.10.1995 was executed by accused Mohru after the death of Ramjeevan. Ramjeevan was alive on 5.10.1995 as per the Death Certificate issued by the Head Master, which is supported by Mst. Kothi, the wife of Ramjeevan. 10. As regards the allegation of submitting loan application in the Land Development Bank and the execution of document by Mst. Rampyari representing accused Mohru belonging to a person of Koli by caste knowingly that he does not belong to that particular caste, no substantial evidence has been produced on record. 11. It is well settled position of law that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the un-controverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and therefore no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceedings even though it may be at a preliminary stage. Reference in this connection may be made to Madhavrao v. Sambhajirao (1998 Cr.L.J.-853) . 12. In the instant case, as stated above, no special-ground exists to said the prosecution survive in view of the above facts of the case. The criminal prosecution cannot be allowed to serve any oblique purpose. Moreover, even if the facts remain un-controverted, the chances of conviction in the instant case are quite bleak. Hence no useful purpose would be served by allowing this criminal prosecution. 13. For the above reasons, I accept this petition and quash the FIR No.259 of 1997 of Police Station, Phagi District Jaipur against the accused-petitioners for the offences under sections 120, 120-B, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.Petition allowed. *******