SARRAF, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has filed this criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing FIR No. 402/2007 lodged by the respondent no. 2 Ramgopal Agarwal at the police station Nayapura, Kota under Sections 420, 406, 467 and 468 IPC wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner entered into an agreement for sale of the land described therein on 2. 5. 1990 in favour of the respondent no. 2 claiming the land to be his own and received Rs. 1,50,000/- as consideration from the respondent no. 2 whereas the land did not belong to him and it actually belonged to one Raju Lal S/o Gajanand Gurjar.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned P. P. and learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that prior to the agreement dated 2. 5. 1990, an agreement was executed by the father of the petitioner in favour of the wife of the respondent no. 2 in regard to the same land and thus the respondent no. 2 was aware of the status of the land and, therefore, it is not correct to say that the respondent no. 2 has been deceived by the petitioner. He has argued that the agreement was executed in the year 1990 and the respondent no. 2 has filed the complaint in the year 2007 after a lapse of 17 years and, therefore, the complaint is time barred. He has further argued that the petitioner is agreeable to pay Rs. 4,50,000/- to the respondent no. 2 as per the terms of the agreement and thus the petitioner has no intention to cheat the respondent no. 2. He prays that in these circumstances the FIR be quashed. He has placed reliance on 2002 (9) SCC 767, 2004 (3) RCC 1431, WLC (Raj.) (UC) 708 and 2004 WLC (Raj.) (UC) 307. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has argued that in the agreement dated 2. 5. 1990 the petitioner has claimed to be the owner of the land described therein whereas the fact is that the land is not in his name and he is not the exclusive owner of the land and thus by receiving Rs. 1,50,000/- as consideration for the sale representing himself to be the sole owner of the land he has cheated the respondent no. 2. According to her the proposal of the petitioner to pay Rs. 4,50,000/- to the respondent no. 2 as per the agreement does not absolve the petitioner from the criminal liability. She has contended that whether the respondent no. 2 was aware of the true state of affairs or not is a question of fact to be proved by evidence and no assumption can be made at this stage with respect to the knowledge of the respondent no. 2. She has further contended that though the agreement for sale was executed on 2. 5. 1990 but the respondent no. 2 came to know the real facts in April,2007 and as such the complaint is not time barred. She, therefore, prays that the petition be dismissed. Learned P. P. has supported the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. There is an agreement dated 2. 5. 1990 wherein the petitioner has claimed himself to be the owner of the land described therein whereas according to the F. I. R. the fact is that the land is not in his name as per the revenue record and he is not the execlusive owner of the land. There is also the allegation in the F. I. R. that the petitioner received Rs. 1,50,000/- from the respondent no. 2 as consideration for the sale. It is obvious that upon perusal of the FIR it cannot be said that prima facie no offence is made out.
(3.) THERE is force in the contention of learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 that the proposal of the petitioner to pay Rs. 4,50,000/- to the respondent no. 2 as per the terms of the agreement does not in this case absolve the petitioner from criminal liability. However, without being prejudiced by the above observation this aspect of the matter may be considered at an appropriate stage by the competent authority As regards the knowledge of the respondent no. 2 with respect to the true status of the land, suffice it to say that it is a question of fact to be proved by evidence and no assumption can be made at this stage. The agreement is dated 2. 5. 1990 but as per the F. I. R. the respondent no. 2 came to know the true state of affairs regarding the land in April,2007 and thereafter, the report was lodged on 2. 9. 2007. This aspect really requires investigation by the investigating agency. ;