JUDGMENT 1. - Since both these petitions arise out of a common order taking cognizance of offence under S 420/120B Indian Penal Code in criminal case No 286/83 of the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Ajmer, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Brief facts giving rise to these petitions are that non-petitioners Radhey Shyam Gupta and Jagdish Prasad Khandelwal jointly filed a complaint against four persons, namely, Banwarial, Brij Lal, Smt. Leelawai and Smt. Satyawati wherein it was alleged that complainant No. 1 was working as Revenue Officer in Municipal Council, Ajmer. while complainant No. 2 was an Assistant in Life Insurance Corporation and they were living in a rented house at Ajmer. Accused persons were also living in the same locality where the complainants were staying. Accused No. 1 is son of accused No. 2 and accused No. 3 and 4 are daughters of accused No. 2 living at Beawar and Bombay respectively, while accused No. 1 lives in Kota. The complainants were in need of some suitable land for construction of their respective houses and they contacted the persons of the locality. It is alleged that on December 19, 1982 accused No. 1 went to the residence of complainant No.1 and informed him that he wants to dispose of a plot of land measuring 250 Sq. yards to the West of his house property bearing AMC 607/27 and which he has received by way of a gift from his father, accused No. 2. He is alleged to have assured the complainants that he has absolute right to sell the said plot. Complainant No 2 also arrived on the spot and accused No.1 showed the registered gift deed executed by accused No. 2 which was in favour of accused No. 1. Accused No. 2 offered to sell the land at Rs. 175/- per sq yard. The complainant desired to see the plot and also expressed his desire to meet accused No. 2 and the sisters to ascertain their willingness about the said proposal of accused No. 1. On December 20, 1982, the complainant went to the house of the accused where it is alleged that all the four accused were present and in their presence the complainant made enquiries from accused No. 2 regarding the gift and accused No. 2 in presence of accused Nos. On December 20, 1982, the complainant went to the house of the accused where it is alleged that all the four accused were present and in their presence the complainant made enquiries from accused No. 2 regarding the gift and accused No. 2 in presence of accused Nos. 3 and 4 told that accused No. 1 is absolute owner of the property gifted to him and has a right to sell. Thereafter the transaction was finalised at the rate of Rs. 165/- per sq. yard. Accused No. 1 wanted Rs. 15,000/- by way of advance payment of sale-price, since it is alleged that he was in urgent need of money in view of his daughter's marriage. It was agreed that an agreement would be excited next day Thus on December 21, 1982 accused No. 1 executed an agreement to sell in presence of the witnesses clearly representing therein that accused No 2 has validly gifted the said plot of land through registered dead and that the said land is free from encumbrances. On the aforesaid representation and on execution of the deed the complainant paid Rs 15,000/- in cash to accused No 1. At the time of execution of the agreement accused No. 1 also handed over the original gift deed dated, 24-10-80. The complainant thereafter got a public notice published in Daily Navjyoti, dated 28-12-1982 inviting objections regarding the said plot from public, if any. It is alleged that on 1-1-1983 the complainant received a registered notice from one Shri Kastoorchand Jhanwer Advocate for and on behalf of accused No. 2 wherein it was alleged that gift deed was a forged document as it has been forged by accused No. 1 and he had no marketable price to sell the property. It was alleged that the said property had already been sold to accused No. 4. The complainants, it is alleged, on receipt of this notice went to see the accused persons but they refused to see the former. Thereafter the complainants are alleged to have made further inquiry in the matter and learnt that accused No.1 had moved an application in some case No. 116/81 before the Collector of Stamps; that the said property has been sold by accused No. 2 to accused No. 3 and her husband Nihalchand. Thereafter the complainants are alleged to have made further inquiry in the matter and learnt that accused No.1 had moved an application in some case No. 116/81 before the Collector of Stamps; that the said property has been sold by accused No. 2 to accused No. 3 and her husband Nihalchand. It was further alleged that accused No. 2 had no right to gift the property and the same was void and not effective. It was alleged in the complaint that accused No. 1 in a Civil miscellaneous appeal No. 128/82 in the court of District Judge, Ajmer had challenged the validity of the gift made by accused No. 2 in his favour and yet another application is alleged to have been filed on 7.1.1983. It was further alleged in the complaint that the accused persons had conspired to fleece the complainants of their pockets to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- by making it fraudulent and dishonest representation and thus committed various offences. This complaint was filed on 2.3.1983. The learned Magistrate recorded the statements of the witnesses on 9.3.1983 and 25.3.1983 and thereafter passed the impugned order on 31.3.1983. He directed that the accused should be summoned by bailable warrants in sum of Rs. 500/- each. The accused persons presented themselves before the trial court except accused No. 4 in person, though she appeared through a counsel and moved an application for exemption. Thereafter she filed a petition in this court being Criminal Misc. Petition No. 341/84. Brij Lal and Banwarilal also filed petition for quashing the entire proceedings. Leelawati, however, has not preferred any petition. 3. Mr. J.K. Singhi appearing on behalf of Brij Lal and Banwarilal, submitted that issuance of process in a case like the present is an abuse of the process of the court. It is submitted that the matter was between accused No. 1 and the complainants because he alone had executed an agreement to sell on the basis of registered gift-deed, the original of which he had passed over to the complainants. The complainants have neither given any notice to him nor filed a suit for specific performance of the contract nor asked him to execute the sale-deed and assuming that the said document is forged and filed the present complaint prematurely. The complainants have neither given any notice to him nor filed a suit for specific performance of the contract nor asked him to execute the sale-deed and assuming that the said document is forged and filed the present complaint prematurely. He submitted that the gift was irrevocable and was through a registered document with delivery of possession and any change of mind of the donor subsequently would not make the gift invalid and therefore, no cause of action for any criminal case would arise unless accused No 1 would have refused to get the sale-deed registered or hand over the physical possession of the land to the complainants. It is submitted that the complainants were not concerned with any dispute inside the family unless he had the sale or transfer the land. It is then submitted that the complainants have confused between vacant plot of land the constructed portion and without getting the clarification by giving notice or otherwise to the accused-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, namely Brij Lal and Banwari Lal filed this complaint which is premature. It is then submitted that it was in fact non-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 who wanted to get rid of the agreement dated, December 21, 1982, and demanded the advance money back. It is submitted that petitioner No. 2 Banwari Lal had assured non-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Rawat Advocate that there was no defect in the title so far as the sale of proposed vacant plot of land was concerned. The petitioners Brij Lal and Banwari Lal along with their petition have relied upon some documents filed along with the application under S. 482 Cr P.C. It is therefore submitted that considering the case in totality the proceedings deserve to be quashed. 4. Shri B.L. Pagaria, appearing on behalf of Smt. Satyawati, submitted that she has been falsely roped in the case even when she had no hand in the deal. It is submitted on her behalf that she stays in Bombay and it is only in order to bring pressure on her that she has been made a party. Mr Pagaria has stated that her client is not having very good relations with Banwari Lal and Brij Lal. She has only been made party in order to extract money from her. Mr Pagaria has stated that her client is not having very good relations with Banwari Lal and Brij Lal. She has only been made party in order to extract money from her. It has been stated that the several facts have been suppressed in the petition which are narrated in the memo of petition including the exchange of the notices. The complainants have deliberately made not only false accusation but have deliberately changed their stand qua her. It is further submitted that vague allegation of conspiracy has been levelled against his client and the entire proceedings should be quashed. 5. Replying to the submissions of Shri Singhi and Shri Pagaria, Shri Sharma learned counsel for complainant submitted that dates are very relevant in the instant case. He submits that it was on December 19, 1982 that Banwarilal came to their residence and it was on the very next day that the complainants were called at his place where all the four accused were present and such an enthusiasm was shown by the accused petitioners for selling the premises that advance was even received on 21-12-82, but once the amount was received by Banwarilal he failed to carry out his promises. It is submitted that intact as a matter of abundant caution his clients issued public notice whereby they invited objections, if any, from any person interested in this property deal and it was to their great surprise that Brij Lal father of Banwari Lal, came as an objector who was a party to the conspiracy. Later circumstances, it is submitted speak for themselves about the fraud played upon the complainants by accused Banwari Lal and Brij Lal. He has made great emphasis on occupant marked D filed along with the complaint which is a notice given by Kastoor Chand Jhanwar Advocate and also on an application moved before the Collector of Stamps, Ajmer marked E. It is submitted that a composite reading of the documents produced along with the complaint which are certified copies of' the judicial record make it amply clear that Brij Lal Banwari Lal and the other two accused entered into a conspiracy in order to fleece the complainants of their pockets. It is further submitted that entire case is based on documentary evidence plus the statements of as many as 3 lawyers who had given the notice or filed the petitions in courts namely, Chiranjilal, S.P. Saxena and Kastoor Chand Jhanwar. It is further submitted that Banwari Lal himself is an Advocate who has left Ajmer and settled down in Kota and he knew the consequences very well himself being a law graduate and a lawyer and, therefore, it becomes all the mere serious that the complainants have been duped in a manner alleged by them in the petition. It is also submitted that the scope of S. 482 Cr. P.C. is very much limited and this court should not interfere at this stage. 6. I have gone through the entire record of the trial court and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. At the outset I may mention here that the documents relied upon in this court either by Satyawati or by Brij Lal and Banwari Lal cannot he gone into since they are not the part of the record of the trial court and anything which has not been placed on record of the trial court cannot be considered by this court, as this court is neither empowered to take evidence nor it should consider something where a factual or legal controversy is likely to follow as again that would be a mixed question of law and fact which will have to be gone into by the trial court if alleged in the first instance. Therefore, I will keep out of consideration all the documents placed before this court by the accused petitioners and would consider the case on the strength of the complaint, statements recorded under S. 200/202 Criminal Procedure Code and the documents placed along with the complaint. I will also not like to discuss the remaining facts in details since it is likely to prejudice the case of either of the party in case, the case further proceeds because at this stage I cannot go into the merits of the case except to see whether issuing of the process was an abuse of the court on the facts mentioned in the complaint itself and for that a broad look at the complaint and the statements is sufficient. Scope of S. 482 Criminal Procedure Code cannot be extended to the extent of quashing the proceedings in one and all cases by closely scrutinising the facts and the law involved in the case. At the stage of issuing process it is only that the prima facie case has to be looked into by the trial court and it is only in circumstances mentioned in the case of Vimla Agrawal v. State of Rajasthan : S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 175/87, decided on 7.10.1988 , that the proceedings can be quashed. In the light of the aforesaid law the complaint and the statements recorded under S. 200 Criminal Procedure Code has to be looked into. The complainants in their statements have categorically stated that they contacted Banwari Lal who agreed to sell the property and before the money was advanced they also contacted Brijlalji and Brijlalji stated that he had made a gift of the property to Banwari Lal who is fully entitled to dispose of the same and -that he is in need of the money as his daughter is to get married. The further submission of the complainant is that while these talks were going on two ladies were also present and those two ladies were Satyawati and Leelawati who did not state that they had any objection for selling the land and the complainants by their conducts sought to infer that they were parties to the conspiracy in making fairer representation, as such the only evidence sought to be produced against Satyawati and Leelawati is their consent to transaction by silence. There is not a word either in the complaint or in the statements of the complainants and their witnesses that either Satyawati or Leclawati gave any mis-representation which ultimately was found to be false. Hence even if the allegations made against them are read as a whole it is too remote to bring the case within the ambit of S 120B IPC, hence their case is quite distinguishable with that of Brijlal and Banwarilal. Banwarilal is said to be an Advocate and, therefore, is well conversant with the position of law. It can also not been (illegible) ex-facie ilia, he was not conversant with what happened in the family in past qua the land in dispute. Banwarilal is said to be an Advocate and, therefore, is well conversant with the position of law. It can also not been (illegible) ex-facie ilia, he was not conversant with what happened in the family in past qua the land in dispute. In all fairness he ought to have placed the entire facts before the complainants so that they could have applied their mind and considered the entire circumstances and then took a decision for going into the deal. Whatever may be the truth the very circumstance that the complainants got a general notice published in Navjyoti dated 28.12.1982, i.e., only after 7 days of the payment made and in reply to which Brijlal sent the notice to Kastoor Chand Jhanwar Advocate, is sufficient ex facie to show that circumstance that case requires a close scrutiny by issuing process to Brijlal and Banwarilal both. For the former because the complainants have come with a case that he had made a categorical statement before them that Banwarilal is the absolute owner of the property gifted to him and has a right to sell. He had vouchsafed the correctness of the gift-deed and he himself served a notice on the complainants when a public notice was issued by them, and for the latter but for his assurance money could not have been parted with. Thus at this stage I am not inclined to interfere in the case against them. I do not think this is one of the rarest of the rare cases where proceedings should be quashed qua Brijlal and Banwarilal in the given circumstances of the case particularly when the document sought to be filed by them before this court at this stage cannot be taken into consideration and I do not intend to comment on them as already mentioned above. On perusal of the record I am of the opinion that there is no proper material to proceed against Satyawati and Leelawati and to continue proceedings against them shall be an abuse of the process of the court, as in the absence of any proper accusation against them they cannot be prosecuted. Satyawati has filed petition to quash the proceedings, while Leelawati has not. But since this court has gone into the record and found that there is no allegation that she made a mis representation she should be proceeded with. Satyawati has filed petition to quash the proceedings, while Leelawati has not. But since this court has gone into the record and found that there is no allegation that she made a mis representation she should be proceeded with. Hence considering her case I deem it proper that I should consider her case suo motu and quash the proceedings against her to secure the ends of justice. 8. As a result of the aforesaid discussion S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 341/ 84, Smt Satyawati v. Radhey Shyam Gupta & Ors. is allowed and the proceedings against her are quashed. Proceedings are also quashed against Leelawati as I have taken up the matter suo motu, while S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 81/85 Brij Lal and Anr. v. Radhey Shyam Gupta & Ors. is dismissed.Cri Misc Petition No. 341/84 Allowed. Cr Misc Petition No. 81/85 dismissed. *******