PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI,J. - (1.) The petitioners have preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 for quashing of IR No.430/2014 registered at Police Station Udaimandir, District Jodhpur and proceedings in furtherance thereto for offence under Section 420, 467, 471, 472/120-B of IPC.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 08.10.2014, the respondent No.2 filed a complaint before the court of Additional Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate (JM) No.3, Jodhpur against the petitioners for alleged offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 120-B of IPC. It was alleged in the complaint that the petitioner No.1 and 2 were having land in Khasra No.195/3 measuring 6 bigha 7 biswa situated at village Narnadi, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur. There was an agreement to sale between the parties for the said land for RS. 1,45,000/- per bigha and out of which, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was paid on 21.06.2014. The complaint was to be paid an amount of Rs. 9,20,755/-, out of which, he paid Rs. 7,10,000/- and the rest amount was due to be paid. The amount was to be paid within a period of one year from the signing of the agreement i.e. on 21.06.2004 for complying of the necessary terms of the agreement. The respondent No.2 alleged that he came to the petitioners to pay balance amount and requested him to get the land registered in their name then the petitioner No.1 told that there is dispute between the brothers and therefore, he did not take any action against the present petitioners. It is relevant to note here that no civil suit was filed between the parties regarding the compliance or consequences of the said agreement. It was only on 08.10.2014 that the respondent No.2 chose to file a complaint which was forwarded under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., 1973
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that there was no dispute regarding land in question and merely with an intention to defeat the civil rights arisen between the parties. Out of the said agreement, the FIR has been lodged with a delay of more than 10 years i.e. the agreement was executed on 21.06.2004 and the FIR has been lodged on 08.10.2014. It is also stated that on the bare reading of the facts of the FIR, no offence is constituted as the FIR merely narrates the failure of the agreement which had occurred between the parties and there was a variation on the prices of the property therefore, the parties failed to comply with the final terms of the agreement.;