RAVINDRA SINGH,J. - (1.) - Heard Sri J.S. Kashyap and Km. Istuti Singh, learned Counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Rashtrapati Khare, learned Counsel appearing on be­half of respondent No. 2. This application has been filed by the applicants Hansraj, Bharat Kumar and Harish Kumar with a prayer to quash the charge sheet No. 170 of 2008 dated 9.4.2008 of case crime No. 390 of 2008 under sec­tions 420, 467,468, 471, 406 I.P.C. and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad pending in the Court of learned CJ.M. Ghaziabad in criminal case No. 7742 of 2008 and to quash the order dated 12.5.2008 by which the cognizance has been taken by learned C.J.M Ghaziabad.
(2.) THE facts in brief, of this case are that the FIR has been lodged by respondent No. 2 Smt. Deepika against the applicants on 18.3.2008, at 3.30 p.m. in case crime No. 390 of 2008, Police Station Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad alleging therein that, her husband Harish Kumar, applicant No. 3, her father-in-law Bharat Kumar appli­cant No. 2, Hansraj applicant No. 1 and one Dharmendra Arora have cheated her by way of playing a fraud and forging a document. It is alleged that respondent No. 2 and applicant No. 3 Harish Kumar have booked a Flat No. 606, Regent Block, Su-pertech Constructions Pvt. Ltd. 9 Vaishali, Ghaziabad, its reference is given in a letter dated 16.2.2005 (allotment letter), it was jointly allotted in th4 names of respondent No. 2 and her husband applicant No. 3. Several payments have been made by re­spondent No. 2 from her account for which the respondent No. 2 has taken housing loan of Rs. Six lacs from Syndicate Bank, she has taken the money from her parents also, the same was paid to Supertech Com­pany but by playing a fraud its registry was made only in the name of applicant No. 3 Harish Kumar, after investigation the charge-sheet has been submitted on which the learned CJM has taken the cognizance on 12.5.2008. The present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the above mentioned charge-sheet and the cognizance order dated 12.5.2008. It is contended by Counsel for the applicants that on account of dispute be­tween wife and husband, the present FIR has been lodged, prior to lodging the FIR, the FIR dated 9.3.2008 was lodged by re­spondent No. 2 against her husband Harish Kumar, father-in-law Bharat Kumar, mother-in-law Smt. Shakuntala Devi and Sachin alias Joni. The dispute between the parties are purely of civil in nature. The marriage of the applicant No. 3 was sol­emnized with respondent No. 2 on I 11.11.2003 without any demand of dowry. I After marriage, the respondent No. 2 and I her father were insisting the applicant No. I 3 Harish Kumar to live separately from his I parents for which the applicant No. 3 has I applied for loan of Rs. 6 lacs to purchase a I residential flat. He applied for flat, the I same was allotted, the allotment letter was I issued by Super Tech. Construction Private I Limited on 16.2.2005, its sale deed was exe-1 cuted in favour of applicant No. 3 on I 9.3.2005 with the permission of respondent I No. 2 Smt. Dipika Kamal but subsequently, I the respondent No. 2 persuaded the appli­cant No. 3 to enter her name in the afore­said flat but the same was refused which caused so many problems between hus­band and wife ultimately the FIR of case crime No. 341 of 2008 under sections 498-A, 323, 406 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad was registered on 9.3.2008, the FIR under section 2/3 of Women Domestic Violence Act was also registered on 13.3.2008 and the FIR of the present dase was registered on 18.3.2008. The respondent No. 2 also filed a civil suit for declaring the ownership of the flat in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Ghaziabad in which the injunction order dated 17.3.2008 was passed. A loan of Rs. 6 lacs has been sanc­tioned for the flat by HDFC Bank, its in­stalments have been paid by the applicant No. 3 through the Bank account No. 00931050006756 of HDFC Bank. During investigation, the statements of Dharmendra Arora and R.K. Arora have been recorded by the I.O. under section 161 Cr.P.C. which shows that the sale deed was executed in favour of applicant No. 3 with the permission of the respondent No. 2, the I.O. also recorded the statements of other witnesses Ram Kishan and Sonu which do not disclose the constitution of the offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 I.P.C. There is no credible evidence collected by the I.O. against the applicants, even then, the charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicants, the same may be quashed because the FIR has been lodged with an ulterior motive by the respondent No. 2, the proper remedy available in the Civil Court.
(3.) IN reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 that on the basis of allegation made in the FIR and the material collected by the I.O. during investigation, it discloses that cheating has been committed with the re­spondent No. 2 and the applicants have played a fraud and forged agreement to sell was also prepared and a sale deed was executed in favour of applicant No. 3 whereas the flat was booked by the re­spondent No. 2 and applicant No. 3 jointly, during investigation, the I.O. has collected a sufficient material disclosing the com­mission of the offence there is sufficient material against the applicant to proceed further. The civil suit has been filed by re­spondent No. 2 so that she may be able to get her share in the flat. By filing a civil suit, she may not be able to claim her right, due to filing of civil suit it cannot be said that the issue in the present case is purely of civil in nature whereas the act done by the applicants is constituting an offence in which they have been charge-sheeted. There is no proper ground for quashing the charge-sheet. Learned CJM Ghaziabad has taken the cognizance after perusing the material collected by the I.O. during inves­tigation. There is no illegality in the order of cognizance dated 12.5.2008, it has been wrongly mentioned the date in the present case as 2.5.2008, the present application is devoid of merit and the same may be dis­missed.;