impugned order holding that the petitioner made allegations for causing of abuses and threats, which are general nature. So also, his signatures were obtained on some blank papers and TTO forms. Thereafter the petitioner learnt about transfer of his vehicle by the Respondents accused by using his signatures. As per averments, in the year 2002, the petitioner purchased the Vehicle on loan from the bank and entire amount of loan repaid in the year 2005 and produced no dues certificate dated 29.04.2005 and alleged incident occurred on 22.04.2005. However, it is not the case of the petitioner that, his signatures are forged on those vehicle transfer papers but it is the contention of the petitioner that his signatures are forcibly obtained on the blank papers. Further, the alleged incident took place in the year 2005 and the petitioner instituted the complaint in the year 2011, which creates doubt about genuineness of the complaint and that too without explaining the delay. Though the learned Magistrate observed about constitution of offence u/s 383 of IPC still the the learned Magistrate had to come to correct conclusion in not issuing process against the Respondents/ Accused persons. Therefore, I do not find that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are
