JUDGMENT 1. - This second petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been submitted by Chand Ratan to quash FIR No. 259 dated 1.10.1998 of police station Kot Gate, Bikaner for offence under Section 420 read with 406 IPC. 2. I have heard Shri D.S. Shishodia on behalf of petitioner, Shri S.D. Vyas and Shri G.M. Khan on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and learned Public Prosecution on behalf of State. 3. Learned counsel for the complainant first raised preliminary objection that on earlier occasion a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was rejected by this Court on 23.3.1999 and the second petition would not be maintainable. Shri Shishodia submitted that after the first Misc. Petition No. 213/99 was dismissed, there has been a change in circumstances and, therefore, this petition has been filed. I have heard both the counsel and learned P.P. in extenso. 4. I need not narrate the facts as they have been stated in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 213/99, decided on 23.3.1999. However, Shri Shishodia submitted that the matter was of a civil nature and the FIR should be quashed. He submitted that quite a number of documents have been produced to the investigating agency by which it can be concluded that the matter was of a civil nature but complainant Sunil Rampuria made it a criminal one. 5. The contention of Shri Shishodia is that the land belonged to Bajrang Swaroop Pandey. Allahnoor is his power of attorney holder and, therefore, Chand Ratan could not have entered into the agreement with the complainant. He also submitted that earlier it was stated that the land was sold to Devi Singh but an affidavit of Shri Devi Singh dated 15.11.1999 has been filed according to which the contract dated 5.5.1995 was cancelled and he had received the amount which he had paid towards the contract. Allahnoor has given a notice to Sunil Rampuria that he should perform his part of contract. This notice has been sent on 7.7.1999 it has been further submitted that Sunil Rampuria himself referred the matter to an arbitration and it means that the matter was civil one and has been given a turn by the complainant. Allahnoor has given a notice to Sunil Rampuria that he should perform his part of contract. This notice has been sent on 7.7.1999 it has been further submitted that Sunil Rampuria himself referred the matter to an arbitration and it means that the matter was civil one and has been given a turn by the complainant. He further submitted that the land was earlier covered under the Urban Ceiling law but now the Ceiling law is no more in existence and, therefore, sale deed could be executed and a notice has been given to Shri Sunil Rampuria to perform his part of contract and, therefore, the FIR should be quashed. 6. On the other hand, counsel for Shri Sunil Rampuria submitted that Allahnoor and the petitioner are hands in gloves now and the investigating agency has already recorded the statement of Shri Rampuria in view of all these documents on 15.9.1999 and that statement should be seen. Learned P.P. has also drawn my attention to that statement and has also submitted that every effort is being made to prepare all sorts of document in order to save the petitioner with the aid and assistance of Allahnoor. 7. I have gone through the case diary including the supplementary statement of Sunil Rampuria dated 15.9.1999. I find from this supplementary statement that the witness has explained almost everything regarding these documents which are subsequent as stated by Shri Shishodia. I find that quite a good number of affidavits are being presented by the supporters of the petitioner about whom I had observed in the earlier order that he appeared to be a member of land mafia gang. 8. I find from the supplementary statement of Sunil Rampuria that he did not made reference to the arbitrator in the sense it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Instead when amount was not being paid, he was approached and then he had requested a person to get his money back. It is found form the record that he was cheated by the petitioner. It is also found that the petitioner had moved an application for anticipatory bail which has been dismissed on 24.5.1999. The investigating agency has examined these documents which have been presented after the earlier order and found that they are prepared to save the petitioner. 9. It is found form the record that he was cheated by the petitioner. It is also found that the petitioner had moved an application for anticipatory bail which has been dismissed on 24.5.1999. The investigating agency has examined these documents which have been presented after the earlier order and found that they are prepared to save the petitioner. 9. The law as it stands about quashing of the FIR had already been stated in the earlier order. An FIR can be quashed when it does not disclose commission of cognisable offence. It can also be quashed when the allegations in the FIR are so absurd that a man of reasonable prudence cannot believe them. It was so held in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors., AIR 1992 SC page 604 . After having gone through ever the later investigation after the earlier order, I am still of the view that the record discloses the commission of cognisable offences. It cannot be said that the allegations in the FIR are so assured that no man of reasonable prudence can believe them. 10. Consequently, the petition is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******