RAVINDRA SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants M/s Delhi Auto and General Finance Private, Limited, through Sri G. Sagar Suri, Chairman and Narendra Suri with a prayer to quash the chargesheet dated 4.3.2010 in case crime no. 755 of 2009 under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad pending in the court of learned C.J.M. Ghaziabad vide criminal case No. 14910 of 2010.
(2.) THE facts in brief of this case are that the FIR has been lodged by O.P. No. 3 Smt. Veena Rani on 30.3.2009 in respect of the incident allegedly occurred on 24.6.2003, the FIR has been registered in case crime no. 755 of 2009, P.S. Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad. It is alleged that the first informant O.P. No. 3 Veena Rani entered into agreement to sale with the applicants about a land bearing Khata No. 127 and Khasra No. 520/1 having an area of 12 Beeghas situated in village Moiuddinpur Kanavani, Pargana Loni, Tahsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. The agreement was made by the applicant No. 1 to sale the land to the O.P. No. 3 at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per sq. Meter, in pursuance of the agreement Rs. Two lacs in cash were given by the respondent as earnest money on 24.6.2003, a pay order No. 243650 dated 30.6.2003 of Rs. Three lacs, a pay order No. 242660 dated 3.7.2003 of Rs. 3.5 lacs, a pay order No. 112701 dated 4.9.2003 of Rs. Ten lacs, a pay order No. 112969 dated 24.10.2003 of Rs. Seven lacs were paid by the respondent No. 3 to applicant no. 1. The rest of the money was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed but the applicant No. 1 did not execute the sale deed of the land concerned, for execution of the sale deed a registered notice dated 19.5.2007 was sent by the O.P. No. 3 mentioning therein that the sale deed may be executed on 18.6.2007 but the applicant no. 1 did not turn up to execute the sale deed. The applicant No. 1 deliberately with he dishonest intention committed a fraud with O.P. No. 3 even he did not return the earnest money which was received by him. But without consent of O.P. No. 3 the land for which agreement to sale was made with the O.P. No. 3 has been sold by the applicant No. 1 to third party. After investigation the I.O. has submitted the chargesheet dated 4.3.2010 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad who has taken the cognizance on 21.4.2010. Being aggrieved from the chargesheet dated 26.2.2010 the applicants have filed this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the same. Heard Sri Murli Dhar, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Hari Lal Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.
(3.) IT is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that: 1. the applicant No. 1 had made request to O.P. No. 3 several times to fulfil her commitment and get the agreement registered but she never turned up to take necessary steps for making the payment of money and get the registered sale deed. Thus, the O.P. No. 3 has cheated the applicant No. 1 and without having any authority she has tried to sell the applicants' property to her relatives. The applicants had requested her to take the refund of the money which she had deposited but she never turned up. 2. That in the entire body of the FIR there is no reference to the name or role assigned to the applicant No. 2, however at the tail end of the FIR the cryptic assertion requesting the police to register the case against the applicant No. 2 Narendra Suri has also been made. 3. Upon the registration of the FIR the applicants along with the co-accused Shiv Suri filed a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3992 of 2010 in which the interim order dated 18.3.2010 staying the arrest of the applicants during investigation has been passed by the Division Bench of this court. 4. The applicant No. 2 had nothing at all to do with the alleged agreement to sale altered by the applicant No. 1 and O.P. No. 3. 5. The applicant No. 2 is not party with the agreement to sale even no material has been collected by the I.O. during investigation connecting applicant No. 2 with the transaction for sale between applicant No. 1 and O.P. No. 3 in any manner whatsoever. 6. The applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case, there is no cogent material to connect them with the commission of the alleged offence. The I.O. has submitted the chargesheet without doing the fair investigation, the applicants have been chargesheeted with malice. 7. The learned Magistrate concerned has taken the cognizance on the basis of the impugned chargesheet and issued non bailable warrant to arrest without perusing the contents of the chargesheet. 8. The material collected by the I.O. is not prima facie disclosing the commission of the offence for which the applicants have been chargesheeted. The nature of the alleged offence appears to be of civil in nature, in as much as the proper course would have been to file civil suit for specific performance. 9. The criminal proceedings are maliciously instituted with the ulterior motive with intention to humiliate the applicants because there was no breech of trust or cheating committed by the applicants. 10. The applicants belong to highly reputed family, they are father and son respectively. The applicant No. 1 is old man of 86 years, in fact not able to move without support, the pace maker has been installed in his heart in the year 1982 and he is suffering from various ailments, therefore, the proceedings pending against the applicants may be quashed. ;