4.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent as well as the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the inherent powers of this Court are not meant to be invoked in a case of this nature. They would submit that it is not as if the first petitioner is having atleast an iota title over the property. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that he is in a position to demonstrate to the satisfaction of this Court that the offending document has been executed by a person, who is totally bereft of any title. According to him, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the petitioners' counsel would not have any application because there is not even a bogey of title that can be claimed by the first petitioner. Only if there is a genuine or bonafide civil dispute, the said decision can be pressed into service. He would further state that if persons not having any title are allowed to execute documents thereby alienating the property belonging to third parties, then, no one will be safe. According to the learned counsel, law cannot be totally divorced from morality. It is true that the defacto complainant can move the civil Court for relief. But such a remedy is rather illusory in practice. The second petitioner will have to incur huge expenditure and also pursue the matter for years together before the civil Court. Therefore, the defacto complainant should not be totally debarred from invoking the process of criminal law. Only if such an approach is adopted by this Court, that would secure the ends of justice, which is the object behind the incorporation of Section 482 of CrPC. The decision reported in AIR 2021 SC 1918 (M/s.Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., vs The State Of Maharashtra and Another) was relied upon. In the said case, the following directions have been issued:-
