JUDGMENT 1. - This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length and have also gone through the investigation file of FIR No. 259/98 of Police Station Kotgatee, Bikaner. 2. Sunil Rampuria lodged a report at police station stating therein that on 13.10.1996 he went to Bada of Chand Ratan situated in Rani Bazar and told that he was interested to purchase a residential land out of city in Bikaner. The petitioner stated that he had 1,50,000 yards of abadi land situated in Shivbadi in the area of old Ballabh Garden and he was interested to sell it. At that time Mr. Anwar was present. Some documents were shown to the complainant and he believed that the land was in the name of the petitioner accused. He agreed to purchase the land at the cost of Rs. 10/- per sq. yard. Thus an oral agreement took place between the parties and it was agreed that the complainant will pay Rs. 5,00,000/- upto April, 1996 and thereafter registered sale deed will be executed in the month of July, 1996 and the balance amount would be paid at the time of execution of the documents. Complainant gave cheques on different dates to the accused petitioner to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- and asked thereafter to execute the sale deed, but the petitioner accused went of procrastinating. The complainant then went to Bada in July, 1996 with Anwar and found that some persons were sitting and they made complaints regarding the land and came to know that the land was in the name of one Allanoor and the petitioner was his power of attorney holder and he had made an agreement with one Devi Singh, on behalf of his power of attorney holder. Then the complainant asked the petitioner as to why did he dupe him, the petitioner accused beseeched to forgive him. Thus, the complainant was cheated to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- and the accused petitioner despite assurances did not return the money. Case under Sections 420 and 406 IPC was registered and is pending investigation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner accused submitted that there were business relations between the petitioner and the complainant and he did borrow a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- by cheques. 5,00,000/- and the accused petitioner despite assurances did not return the money. Case under Sections 420 and 406 IPC was registered and is pending investigation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner accused submitted that there were business relations between the petitioner and the complainant and he did borrow a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- by cheques. But since he was not carrying on his business well, he was not able to pay back the money. The complainant instead of filing a civil suit took to the short cut method to recover the amount and involved him in criminal case. He also submitted that no notice was sent to the petitioner and that no oral agreement of such a big transaction could be made. He also submitted that though the agreement is said to have taken place on 13.10.1996 yet the dates of the cheques which are 8.2.1996 and 7.4.1996 indicate that there were some other transactions and not the alleged one. He also submitted that the area of land was about 1,50,000 yards and the complainant knew it very well that it could not be available at such a low rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. yard. It means that there were many transactions between the parties. He also submitted that the FIR itself mentions such a case which is improbable and the complainant is himself not definite as to what was the case against the petitioner as the first information report has been registered under both the sections i.e. 406 and 420 IPC. He submitted that the case may be either under section 406 of under Section 420 IPC. He has, therefore, prayed that the first information report and subsequent proceedings may be quashed. He has relied on B. Ramesh & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. 1998 Cr.LJ page 580 and submitted that the complainant maliciously filed the FIR to make good his civil wrong. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has controverted all the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The law as it stands today is that quashing of FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be done only in very exceptional cases. Reliance can be placed on State of H.P. v. Pirthi Chand & Anr., 1996 Cr.L.R. (SC) page 61 . 4. The law as it stands today is that quashing of FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be done only in very exceptional cases. Reliance can be placed on State of H.P. v. Pirthi Chand & Anr., 1996 Cr.L.R. (SC) page 61 . The first information report mentions that it was Anwar in whose presence the agreement between the complainant and the accused petitioner was made. He has supported the version given by the complainant 5 and has further stated that Chand Ratan petitioner showed the site plan and the documents in his name which were the photostat copies. Then he accompanied again the complainant and went to talk with the petitioner and found that some persons were asking the appellant about the land and then it was revealed that the land belong to one Allanoor and Chand Ratan was his to power of attorney holder. The land was already sold to one Devi Singh through agreements. Then the petitioner was again inquired and he accepted his guilt. He wanted some time to return the money but the amount was not returned despite many demands. There is evidence of different persons that the transactions between the parties related to this land and there 5 was no other transaction between the parties. It may be stated that the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner by his order dated 15.10.1998 ordered the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer and put his case before him. But there is nothing on record to show that the parties had some money transactions and the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- on loan from the complainant. His account books do show the encashment of cheques but there is nothing to show that this amount was given as a loan. There is no statement of income tax account submitted in the year 1996 in which the petitioner might have shown the borrowing of Rs. 5,00,000/- as loan from the complainant. Instead it has come that one 5 Prem Ratan was sent by Devi Singh to the petitioner who entered into the transaction with the petitioner and paid Rs. 50,000/- as advance towards the sale of this land. An amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- was to be paid by 20.11.1995 as the land was to be taken out of the ceiling limit. Instead it has come that one 5 Prem Ratan was sent by Devi Singh to the petitioner who entered into the transaction with the petitioner and paid Rs. 50,000/- as advance towards the sale of this land. An amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- was to be paid by 20.11.1995 as the land was to be taken out of the ceiling limit. The total amount of agreement between Devi Singh and the petitioner was Rs. 14,50,000/-. Chand Ratan had given a receipt in his writing. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner had cheated the complainant. The land was already sold to Devi Singh and then petitioner made a transaction with the complainant. There is nothing on record to prove that the amount was advanced to the petitioner as loan. The citation of Gujrat High Court : (supra) does not benefit the petitioner at all. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner then cited Narain v. State of Rajasthan and another, RLW 1997(1) Raj. page 600 , in which the facts were that an agreement to sale was entered into between the parties. Advance was given. The purchaser refused to buy the land. He filed a civil suit in which he did not allege the deception. Then the complaint was file after five years and was held that the offence under Section 420 IPC was not proved. He also cited Bheru Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 1985 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) page 232 , in which one of the ingredients of Section 420 IPC is held to be an intention to cheat in the facts of the case when the accused changed his mind and not performed agreement, it was held that he was not liable under Section 420 IPC for change of mind. Needless to say that both these citations are not applicable on the facts of present case. The petitioner appears to be a member of land-mafia. 6. The result is that petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed at admission stage.Petition Dismissed. *******