JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. petition is directed against the order dated 12.2.99 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Anupgarh whereby he upheld the order of framing the charge under section 420 IPC against the petitioners passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anupgarh. 2. Mr. Joshi contends that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature. He points out that even civil suit for specific performance has been filed by the complainant after lodging the FIR Relying on the cases of Nageshwar Prasad Singh v. Narayan Singh 1998 Cr.L.R (SC) 670 and Vijay Raj & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan 1999(1) RCD-117 (Raj.) he submits that the charge framed against the petitioners be quashed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the petition mainly on the ground that the petitioners have already availed of an opportunity of filing revision against the order of framing charge and that revision has been dismissed, and this petition is nothing but a second revision petition in the garb of misc. petition. 4. I have considered the above arguments. It is true that second revision petition by the same party against the order of the Magistrate is barred under sub-sec. (3) of Section 397. However, the Apex Court in the case of Krishnan & Anr. v. Krishna Veni & Anr. 1997 SCC (Cri.) 544 has observed that the High Court may exercise power under section 482 Cr.P.C. if the order under challenge is likely to lead to miscarriage of justice. In view of the legal position propounded in the case of Krishnan (supra) it is to be seen if, the impugned order is likely to lead to miscarriage of justice, or it shall be abuse of the process of the court, if the order is allowed to stand. 5. The prosecution case, in short, is that Ajmer Singh (first informant) approached petitioner Balwant Singh, who is his nephew that he wanted to purchase some land on which Balwant Singh told him that land was available for Rs. 7,80,000/- which was in the name of his wife Jasmail Kaur and he would sell the same to him. 5. The prosecution case, in short, is that Ajmer Singh (first informant) approached petitioner Balwant Singh, who is his nephew that he wanted to purchase some land on which Balwant Singh told him that land was available for Rs. 7,80,000/- which was in the name of his wife Jasmail Kaur and he would sell the same to him. Balwant Singh also informed that in the revenue record the land stood in the name of Budha Ram, and therefore, he would get the sale deed executed by Budha Ram in his favour but after some months the first informant came to know that the petitioners had got the sale deed of the land registered from Budha Ram in the name of their sons Gurpreet Singh and Dara Singh. 6. The question for consideration is whether on the facts which have appeared on record criminal liability can be fastened on the petitioners. A charge under section 420 IPC can be framed only when there is material on record to believe that the accused had dishonest intention at the time he entered into the agreement. A copy of the plaint filed by the first informant shows that Rs. 7,80,000/- were paid by the first informant to the petitioners in instalments and the possession of the land had been handed over to the first informant. There was an agreement to sell executed by Budha Ram in favour of the petitioners and the possession was also with them. When it is on record that the petitioners were having agreement to sell in their favour and they had transferred the possession to first informant it cannot be said that they had dishonest intention when the agreement was entered into between the petitioners and the first informant. Section 415 of the IPC which defines the offence of cheating makes it clear that in order to fasten criminal liability it must be shown that the accused had dishonest intention at the time the agreement was made. Section 415 of the IPC which defines the offence of cheating makes it clear that in order to fasten criminal liability it must be shown that the accused had dishonest intention at the time the agreement was made. Illustration (g) appended to Section 415 IPC makes the position all the more clear which reads as follows : "(g) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to deliver to Z a certain quantity of indigo plant which he does not intend to deliver, and thereby dishonestly includes Z to advance money upon the faith of such delivery, A cheats, but if A, at the time of obtaining the money, intends to deliver the indigo plant, and afterwards breaks his contract and does not deliver it, he does not cheat, but is liable only to a civil action for breach of contract." 7. As to the illustration (g), the Apex Court in the case of Nageshwar Prasad Singh v. Narayan Singh (supra) has observed at para 3 of the report as under: "3. The later part thereof illustrates that at the time when agreement for the sale was executed, it could have in no event been termed dishonest so as to hold that the complainants were cheated of the earnest money, which they passed to the appellant as part-consideration, when possession of the total land involved in the bargain was passed over to the complainant-respondents, and which remains in their possession." 8. The Apex Court held that the controversy involved in the matter was of civil nature. In the instant case, as already stated, the allegations do not show that at the time when the agreement was made by the petitioners they had dishonest intention. Even possession of the land was handed over by them to the first informant. That being so, the criminal liability cannot be fastened on the petitioners. The continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners will amount to abuse of the process of the Court. To prevent such abuse it has become necessary to quash charges framed against the petitioners. 9. Consequently, the petition succeeds. The impugned order is set aside and the charges framed against the petitioners are hereby quashed.Petition Succeeds. *******