Vijay Bishnoi, J. - (1.) THIS criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing the FIR No. 208/2014 dated 02.05.2014 pertaining to Police Station, Udaimandir, District Jodhpur. Brief facts of the case are that the complainants -respondent Nos. 2 to 5 filed a complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Jodhpur, inter alia, alleging therein that the petitioners are owning a residential house No. 56 situated at Dadhimati Nagar, Bhadwasia, Jodhpur, and on 20.09.2013, they entered into an agreement to sell the said house for a consideration of Rs. 71,00,000/ - with the petitioners. It is contended that the petitioners have asked them that the house is mortgaged with the bank and after getting it released from the bank and after obtaining NOC, the sale -deed would be executed. It is further alleged in the complaint that the petitioners have assured them from time to time that soon they would get the registered sale -deed executed but on 07.04.2014, they sold their house to one Smt. Rajni Bohra wife of Kishan Gopal Bohra and Shyamsunder Bohra son of Amar Das Bohra. It is alleged that when the complainants came to know about the transaction, they obtained a certified copy of the registry and approached the petitioners for returning Rs. 25,00,000/ -, which they had paid as advance, however, the petitioners have refused to repay the said advanced amount and committed the offence under sections 406, 420,120 -B IPC.
(2.) THE above mentioned complaint filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 was forwarded by the Court under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the police, which has registered the impugned FIR against the petitioners and other co -accused persons. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that from bare perusal of the FIR, the ingredients for commission of offence punishable under sections 406, 420 and 120 -B IPC are not made out and, therefore, the FIR in question is liable to be quashed and set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Hridaya Rangan P.D. Verma & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (Appeal (Crl.) 313 -314/2000, decided on 31.03.2000); S.N. Palanitkar & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. : AIR 2001 SC 2960; Ram Biraji Devi & Anr. vs. Umesh Kumar Singh & Anr. (Appeal (Crl.) 632/2006, decided on 11.05.2006); Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. 2008 (1) WLC (SC) Cr. 34; Dalip Kaur & Ors. vs. Jaguar Singh & Anr., (Criminal Appeal No. 1135/2009, decided on 07.07.2009; M.N. Ojhd & Ors. vs. Alok Kumar Srivastav & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 1582/2009, decided on 21.08.2009); Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 2069/2012, decided on 14.12.2012). The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on decision of this Court as well as of other High Courts rendered in Pramod Kumar Chhaparwal & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 422/2006, decided on 17.08.2011); Wolfgang Hatz & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 418/2013, decided on 14.12.2013); Late Jangali Roy vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (Cr. Misc. No. 5359/2012, decided on 11.01.2013) and Bal Krishan Garodia vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (Cr. Misc. M. No. 28624/2011, decided on 22.04.2013). While placing reliance on the above referred judgments, counsel for the petitioners has argued that from bare perusal of the impugned FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420 and 120 -B IPC because the petitioners have no intention to cheat the respondents since the beginning of entering into the agreement with them.
(3.) PER contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that from bare perusal of the FIR, the ingredients of offence punishable under sections 406, 420, 120 -B IPC are clearly made out, therefore, no interference is made out. It is argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that the investigation in the matter is in progress and after investigation, it can only be concluded that at the time of entering into an agreement with the complainant, the petitioners were having an intention of cheating or not. At this stage, it cannot be concluded that the petitioners have no intention to cheat the complainants from the beginning. On the strength of the above arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of this criminal misc. petition.;