JUDGMENT 1. - By this revision petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 16.4.2005 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara in Criminal Case No. 594/2004 whereby the learned Magistrate has discharged, accused non-petitioner for alleged offence under Section 420, I.P.C. 2. According to facts of the case, a complaint was filed in which it was alleged that the accused non-petitioner agreed to sell the shop situated at lalbagh Roadways Bus Stand, Nathdwara for a consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/- and out of the said amount a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- was paid on 11.8.2003 and an agreement was also executed for the said sale. It is alleged that the remaining amount of Rs. 50,000/- was to be paid at the time of the registration. It is alleged by the petitioner that the accused non-petitioner refused to execute the registry in his favour and sold the same shop to the son of his sister Kalawati for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 /-. 3. The said complaint was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) to the Police Station, Nathdwara and, after investigation, the police filed challan against accused non-petitioner for offence under Section 420, I.P.C. 4. The learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 16.4.2005 discharged the non-petitioner from the charge under Section 420, I.P.C. on the ground that no prima facie offence is made out against the non-petitioner. The petitioner challenges-the same order and it is prayed that the ingredients of cheating as defined under Section 420, I.P.C. are in existence but the learned trial Court has failed to consider the entire evidence including the fact that the shop which is agreed to be sold to the petitioner by the non-petitioner was sold to another person and the amount which is received by the non-petitioner from the petitioner was not returned back and the same shop was sold to one Sanjay, son of his sister for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-; meaning thereby, it is complete case of deceiving dishonestly but the learned trial Court, at the time of framing charge, ignored all these aspects of the matter and discharged the non-petitioner No. 2 from the charge of offence under Section 420, I.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards the statement of Shyam Sundar, Vishnu Kumar and Akshay Kumar who supported the story and, so also, in the investigation the police have filed challan on the conclusion that initially an agreement was executed in between the petitioner and non-petitioner No. 2 and, in the said agreement, a sum of Rs. 2;25,000/- was received by non-petitioner No. 2 from the petitioner and the same property was, in fact, sold to Sanjay, son of his sister. 'therefore, all the ingredients of cheating are in existence and despite that the trial Court has discharged the non-petitioner erroneously. It is also contended that public notice was also publicized by the petitioner when non-petitioner No. 2 was trying to sell the said property which is also placed on record. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 states that no offence is made out. It is a case of civil nature and, in fact, the petitioner has refused to pay the rest of the amount, therefore, the non-petitioner has not executed the sale-deed. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the non-petitioner that when the petitioner refused to pay Rs. 50,000/-, he sold the property to another person. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, vehemently urged that the case is of civil nature and as such the learned trial Court rightly discharged the non-petitioner from the charge levelled against him. 6. I have perused the entire record of the case. 7. There is evidence on record that the property in question which is admittedly agreed to be sold to the petitioner under agreement has been sold to another person and thereafter registry was also executed by non-petitioner No. 2 which is on record. Non-petitioner No. 2 has received sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- under the agreement from the petitioner and, according to evidence on record, [hereafter he refused to execute the sale-deed. Likewise, it has come on record that the same property was sold by non-petitioner No. 2 under registered sale-deed to Sanjay, son of his sister Kalawati. Non-petitioner No. 2 has received sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- under the agreement from the petitioner and, according to evidence on record, [hereafter he refused to execute the sale-deed. Likewise, it has come on record that the same property was sold by non-petitioner No. 2 under registered sale-deed to Sanjay, son of his sister Kalawati. It is thus obvious that the ingredients of cheating are very much on record upon which charge was to be framed. However, the trial Court appears to have lost sight of this aspect of the matter and discharged the non-petitioner observing that the case is of civil nature. There is prima facie case against non-petitioner No. 2 with regard to charge under Section 420, I.P.C. 8. It may be observed here that quite often the dealings may appear to be civil in nature in cases where an allegation of offence under Section 420, I.P.C. is mule but the Court must examine at the initial stage whether there is sufficient reflection of fraudulent behaviour to reach prima facie the conclusion of cheating in the alleged conduct. It is not the case of the non-petitioner herein that prior to executing the sale-deed in favour of another person in respect of the shop which was agreed to be sold to the petitioner, non-petitioner offered to return the advance consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/-, received from the petitioner under agreement, to him and the petitioner refused to accept the same and insisted upon executing the sale-deed. Had there been an iota of evidence to this effect, the trial Court would have been justified to prima facie conclude that the case is of civil nature and no offence under Section 420, I.P.C. is made out. However, it does not preclude the trial Court, in the event of sufficient evidence coming on record during the course of the trial, to finally come to the conclusion that crux of the matter gives rise to civil dispute and need be adjudicated upon in accordance with law in civil proceedings; but, at the very initial stage, unless there are cogent grounds to believe that no criminality is imputable in the conduct to make out an offence punishable under Section 420, I.P.C. the Court below is not justified in discharging the accused. 9. In the circumstances, I accept the petition and set aside impugned order dated 16.4.2005. 9. In the circumstances, I accept the petition and set aside impugned order dated 16.4.2005. The matter is remitted to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara with a direction to examine the material on record for the purpose of arriving at a prima facie conclusion in the light of the above discussion and pass order in accordance with law.Petition allowed. *******