5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the earlier documents executed in favour of the de facto complainant’s vendor have been cancelled, whereas, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant submits that there is no such cancellation. This is a disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into in this petition. The allegation is that both A1 and A2 have created the aforesaid false document i.e. sale deed and so far as creation of this false document and other connected offences are concerned, there are allegations which disclose those offences. It should also be noted that prominent role is attributed only to A1 and A2 in creating the false documents. 6. So far as A3 to A5 i.e. petitioner Nos.3 to 5 are concerned, the charge sheet allegations do not attribute any role to them. The only role attributed to them is that on 24.01.2008, a quarrel is said to have broken out between the complainant and his men on one side and all the accused on the other and in that quarrel, A3 to A5 are also said to have threatened the complainant and his men. Nothing is clear as to how A3 to A5, who are students, have participated in this threatening incident. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that no case is made out at this stage against A3 to A5 i.e. petitioner Nos.3 to 5.
