Pankaj Naqvi, J. - (1.) Heard Syed Imran Ibrahim, learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Case No. 322/2013 (State vs. Bheemsen and another), (Case Crime No.746/2012), under Sections 420/406/504/506 IPC, P.S. Baradari, Bareilly, pending in the court of A.C.J.M-I, Bareilly. The case of prosecution in the FIR, arising out of an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C is that the applicants are husband and wife, the former, a power of attorney holder of his wife, entered into a registered agreement to sell dated 23.7.2010 in favour of O.P. No.2 in respect of plot nos. 264 & 265, measuring 1000 sq. yards for a sale consideration of Rs.20 lacs, out of which Rs.3 lacs was paid as earnest; on the same date, applicant no.2 also executed a notorized power of attorney in favour of O.P. No.2, authorizing the latter to either execute a sale deed in his favour or in favour of his nominee, upto February, 2011. It is further alleged that subsequently applicant no.2 was paid an additional amount of Rs.14 lacs on 6.8.2010 by O.P. No.2, the informant executed a registered sale deed dated 11.11.2010 of a part of the land in question, i.e., 586.14 sq. mtrs to a 3rd party, but the informant could not execute the sale deed of the remaining area as he remained in judicial custody w.e.f. 1.3.2011 to 16.3.2012, coupled with the fact that despite demands made by informant / O.P. No.2 to execute the sale deed in his favour, neither was any sale deed executed nor the earnest returned. After investigation, a closure report dated 9.6.2012 came to be filed on the ground that the dispute is civil in nature, no offence is made out. The report was rejected, further investigation was ordered, on which a charge-sheet dated 27.2.2013 has been submitted against the applicants, cognizance taken and applicants summoned under Sections 420/406/504/506 IPC which is impugned herein.
(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that on the allegations as unfolded in the FIR / investigation, no offence whatsoever is made out, dispute is purely civil in nature, to which criminality is deliberately assigned for ulterior motives, prosecution being an abuse of the process of the Court, is liable to be quashed.
(3.) Learned A.G.A has opposed the submission.;