JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 20th January, 2011 wherein on the protest petition of Sarabjeet Singh Anand, the petitioners Sudish Kumar, Urmil Arora, Joginder Singh Chabra, his wife Smt. Narender Kaur are summoned, they prefer the present petition. During the pendency of the present petition petitioner No.1 Sudish Kumar passed away and thus the present petition is now concerned only with the remaining three petitioners. 2. A complaint was made by respondent No.2 Sarabjeet Singh on 4th November, 2008 to the post-office alleging that one Manjit Singh along with his associate Jagjit Advocate, Joginder Singh Chabra, his wife Smt Narender Kaur, Sudish Kumar and his wife Urmil Arora etc., got prepared three fake, forged and fabricated postal receipts bearing No. 0902, 0903 and 0904 all shown to be issued on 15th May, 2006 with forged postal stamp (seal of the District Court post-office) to show that service of one mandatory notice upon Sarabjeet Singh had been effected despite the fact that no such notice was sent or received and the said fake documents were prepared with the sole motive to use them against Sarabjeet Singh in a Court case. After a preliminary enquiry by the post-office, this complaint was forwarded to PS Subji Mandi. Thus on the complaint of Senior Superintendent of Post Office, FIR No. 76/2009 under Sections 468/476/465/471 IPC was registered at PS Subji Mandi and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused Manjit Singh without arresting him, whereas Jagjit Singh, Sudish Kumar, Urmil Arora, Joginder Singh Chhabra and Smt. Narender Kaur were kept in column No.12. As per the charge-sheet, during investigation postal receipt bearing No. 0902, 0903 and 0904 were found to be fake and fabricated having not been issued by District Court post-office and the version of Manjit Singh during investigation was that he had misplaced the receipt and could not produce the same though a mandatory notice dated 13th June, 2006 was prepared by his Advocate Jagjit Singh. 3. 3. The protest petition filed by Sarabjeet Singh alleged shoddy investigation conducted by the investigating officer stating therein that in the civil suit for possession pending against him and his family members, Manjit Singh has stated in the plaint that he got mandatory notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act drafted by Jagjit Singh, Advocate dated 13th June, 2006 which was served upon Sarabjeet Singh through registered post, however the postal receipt bearing No. 0902, 0903 and 0904 were found to be fake and fabricated not issued. It was further stated that Sudish Kumar, Urmil Arora, Joginder Singh Chhabra and Narender Kaur filed an application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC in the suit for possession which application was allowed and they have been impleaded as parties in place of Manjit Singh and they have adopted the pleadings of Manjit Singh regarding service of mandatory notice upon him purportedly sent through registered post. 4. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide the impugned order held that the last payment against the sale deed was received by Manjit Singh on 28th July, 2006 and the sale deed was executed on 31st July, 2006 noting that the physical possession of the property in question was handed over to the petitioners herein. Taking cognizance for offences punishable under Section 120B/468/467/465/471 against Manjit Singh, Jagjit Singh, Sudish Kumar, Urmil Arora, Joginder Singh Chhabra and Narender Kaur, learned Metropolitan Magistrate held that there was a reasonable suspicion of criminal conspiracy being hatched among all the accused for the postal receipts mentioned above which were found to be fake and fabricated. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that no cognizance on the protest petition by Sarabjit Singh could be taken as FIR was not registered on his complaint. Further, even on the facts of the case, there was no material whatsoever to come to the conclusion that the petitioners were conspirators with Manjit Singh warranting their summoning for offences punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 468/467/465/471 IPC. 6. The first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since FIR was not registered on the complaint of Sarabjeet Singh, the protest petition filed by him could not be entertained by the Trial Court. 6. The first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since FIR was not registered on the complaint of Sarabjeet Singh, the protest petition filed by him could not be entertained by the Trial Court. The contention is wholly misconceived for the reason it was on the complaint of respondent No.2 sent to the postal department where enquiry was conducted and three postal receipts were found to be fake and fabricated which was forwarded by the concerned officer of the District Court post-office on which FIR was registered. Thus technically the investigation was set into motion on the complaint of respondent No.2 and even if he was not complainant on whose complaint FIR was registered, he was certainly a victim. The decisions in Bhagwant Singh Vs. commissioner of Police & Anr. (1985)2 SCC 537 ; Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre Vs. St. of Maharashtra (2004) 7 SCC 768 and Sanjay Bansal & Anr Vs. Jawaharlal Vats & Anr. (2007) 13 SCC 71 which notes that the person who lodges FIR is entitled to be heard when the Magistrate prefers to drop the proceedings would also apply to this case because the respondent No.2 was a victim and had set the law into motion. 7. The conclusion of the investigating officer in the chargesheet is as under:- “From the investigation conducted so far, it is clear that the mandatory notice dated 13.6.06 was prepared by Adv. Sh. Jagjit Singh at the instruction of Sh. Manjit Singh and was handed over to Sh. Manjit Singh with the direction to send it by post at the address of Sh. Sarbjit Singh, Sh. Amarjit Singh and their mother Smt. Basant Kaur at 6 Cavalry Lines Mall Road, Delhi-07 Mannjit Singh (as stated) by him handed it over to Sh. Rakesh Kumar and after 2/3 days he collected the receipts back from him which have been found fabricated and forged. The list of documents signed and filed with plaint in case No.76/06 by advocate Sh. Jagjit Singh reveals that Ld. Counsel admits to filing of forged postal receipt cited above otherwise why should he mention filling of AD Cards whereas in the court file in this case there are no postal AD Cards filed. That sec. The list of documents signed and filed with plaint in case No.76/06 by advocate Sh. Jagjit Singh reveals that Ld. Counsel admits to filing of forged postal receipt cited above otherwise why should he mention filling of AD Cards whereas in the court file in this case there are no postal AD Cards filed. That sec. 41 of the transfer of property Act states that the transferee (purchaser) must verify the title of the property in all respects not only about the registered documents but also about the possession and shall inquire the occupants in what capacity they are in possession. Statement read over to him. From the facts mentioned above there are sufficient evidence to prosecute Sh. Manjit Singh S/o Late Sh. Sucha Singh mention in Col No.11. Sh. Manjit Singh is about 70 yrs old and is a patient of high sugar, BP and remains on slip disc and has co-operated in the investigation. Hence his arrest has been deferred as no purpose would serve after taking him in custody. No concrete evidence against sudish Kumar, Smt. Urmil Arora, Sr. Joginder Chabra, Smt. Narinder Kaur and Sh. Jagfit Advocate, has come on file, hence their names have been kept in Col. No.12. They can be called by the Hon’ble Court if required at any stage.” 8. As per the protest petition of Sarabjeet Singh, the petitioners started giving earnest money to Manjit Singh initially on 9th June, 2003 and last payment was made on 28th July, 2006. It is thus apparent that all the acts in the interregnum were in connivance of the petitioners and thus they cannot be absolved on the ground that they were bonafide purchasers who stepped into the shoes of Manjit Singh after purported notice under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act was issued. Further the sale deed was executed on 31st July, 2006 noting therein that vacant and peaceful possession had been handed-over, though Manjit Singh was admittedly not in possession of the property and had filed a suit for possession and mesne profits against Sarbajit Singh and others on 26th July, 2006. 9. Further the sale deed was executed on 31st July, 2006 noting therein that vacant and peaceful possession had been handed-over, though Manjit Singh was admittedly not in possession of the property and had filed a suit for possession and mesne profits against Sarbajit Singh and others on 26th July, 2006. 9. From the perusal of the material placed by the respondent No.2 on record it could not be held that there was no material before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to come to the conclusion that prima facie there was a conspiracy between the main accused Manjit Singh and the petitioners herein. Thus the order issuing summons against the petitioners warrants no interference. 10. Petition is dismissed.