JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 19.7.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 7 Jodhpur in Criminal Original Case No. 268/2004 whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Section 420, I.P.C. against the petitioner and one Prakash Chandra and summoned them by bailable warrant of Rs. 5,000/- each. 2. According to facts, there is land situated in village Punjala of Jodhpur district and petitioner's wife and brother are owners of the said land. As per the petitioner, he was authorised by his wife and brother to make any transaction in regard to the said land. The complainant is a property dealer and a complaint was filed by him before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur in November 1999 alleging that he and petitioner both are dealing in property transactions, therefore, the complainant knew Mahesh Chandra and one Prakash Chandra, who was partner of Mahesh Chandra. The complainant alleged that Mahesh Chandra, Prakash Chandra and one Pushpendra Singh Rathore introduced to him a scheme of plots in village Magra Punjala and offered him to purchase some of the plots. The complainant purchased land measuring.1500 sq. yards for a sum of Rs..3,00,000/-. The land in question was purchased by the complainant under an agreement with Pushpendra Singh Rathore. Before this transaction, the said land was purchased by Pushpendra Singh Rathore from petitioner Mahesh Chandra under agreement wherein it is stated that he is owner of the land and is duly authorised to enter into any transaction in respect of the said land. According to the complainant, he has purchased the said 1500 sq. yard land from Pushpendra Singh under agreement and paid. the sale consideration to him; but, due to illegal motive the registry of the said land was not executed in favour of Pushpendra Singh Rathore and Pushpendra Singh is also not executing the sale-deed in his favour. According to the complainant, he has purchased the said 1500 sq. yard land from Pushpendra Singh under agreement and paid. the sale consideration to him; but, due to illegal motive the registry of the said land was not executed in favour of Pushpendra Singh Rathore and Pushpendra Singh is also not executing the sale-deed in his favour. Thus, the contention of the complainant in the complaint is that initially agreement was arrived at for sale in between the petitioner and Pushpendra Singh Rathore and, thereafter, under agreement Pushpendra Singh Rathore sold the said land to the complainant and it is further alleged that the complainant purchased the said land under impression of good faith and assurance of the petitioner that he is owner of the said land and he will execute the sale-deed in favour of any person including Pushpendra Singh Rathore, but, in fact, the petitioner is not owner of the said land which is in the names of his wife and brother; meaning thereby, to cheat the complainant, the petitioner initially made agreement in favour of Pushpendra Singh Rathore showing himself as owner of the property and thereafter, Pushpendra Singh Rathore agreed to sell the land in favour of the complainant and only to cheat the complainant this transaction was entered into by the petitioner. , 3. According to facts of the case, after aforesaid agreement, complainant further sold the property to one Prakash Chandra but no sale-deed was executed by the petitioner in favour of Pushpendra Singh, therefore, Pushpendra Singh was not in a position to execute sale-deed in favour of non-petitioner No. 2 complainant with whom he has entered into the agreement. Prakash Chandra has also filed F.I.R. against the complainant Naresh Surana and said F.I.R. was registered at Police Station Udai Mandir, Jodhpur bearing No. 479/1999 and upon the complaint filed by complainant Naresh Surana against petitioner Mahesh Chandra, the police registered F.I.R. No. 488/1999. After investigation in both the cases, the police filed negative F.R. Thereafter, protest petition was filed by the complainant in this case and Prakash Chandra filed protest petition in Case No. 479/1999 against the complainant. The learned trial Court accepted the FR in favour of Prakash Chandra and petitioner and took cognizance against complainant Naresh Surana. Both the orders were challenged before this Court by way of filing revision petitions. The learned trial Court accepted the FR in favour of Prakash Chandra and petitioner and took cognizance against complainant Naresh Surana. Both the orders were challenged before this Court by way of filing revision petitions. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 99/2001 was filed against order dated 18.11.2000 and S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 305/2000 was filed against order of taking cognizance dated 31.3.2000. The said revision petitions were decided by this Court vide common order dated 7.11.2001 and dismissed the revision petition against order dated 31.3.2000 filed by complainant Naresh Surana and he is facing trial whereas in another revision petition filed by petitioner against acceptance of the F.R., this Court set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court and matter was remanded to the trial Court with direction to proceed afresh according to law after hearing both the parties. 4. In this case, after remand, the learned trial Court took cognizance against Mahesh Chandra and Prakash Chandra under Section 420, I.P.C. The petitioner is challenging the said order on the ground that in this case the ingredients of Section 420, I.P.C. are totally absent because, according to him, there was no transaction between petitioner and Naresh Surana. The contention of the petitioner is that the case is of civil nature and if any dispute arose with regard to property in question then it is not the case that the complainant has purchased the said land from him under agreement to sell. Therefore, as per the petitioner, the learned trial Court has committed error while proceeding to take cognizance of the offence against the petitioner under Section 420, I.P.C. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner Mahesh Chandra that he was authorised by his wife and brother and he has accordingly entered into the agreement. It is vehemently urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the said agreement the complainant and Prakash Chandra were witnesses. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that no case is made out against the petitioner for cheating in view of the provision of Section 415, I.P.C. and there is no direct relationship of the petitioner with the complainant for any transaction of the land situated at Magra Punjala, therefore, the allegation of cheating is baseless. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that no case is made out against the petitioner for cheating in view of the provision of Section 415, I.P.C. and there is no direct relationship of the petitioner with the complainant for any transaction of the land situated at Magra Punjala, therefore, the allegation of cheating is baseless. It is also argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that if any grievance is raised for registering the sale then it can be made by Pushpendra Singh Rathore in whose favour agreement was entered into by Mahesh Chandra in which the complainant is one of the witnesses. As such the order taking cognizance passed by the learned Court below is not sustainable under the law. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited judgments reported in 1985 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 232, Bheru Singh v. State of Rajasthan and another and (2006) 3 SCC (Cri.) 176, Ram Biraji Devi and another v. Umesh Kumar Singh and another , and prayed that refusal from executing registry under an agreement is not a criminal action, therefore, no proceedings can be initiated for offence under Section 420, I.P.C. on the ground that he is not executing the sale-deed which is executable by him under an agreement, therefore, the order impugned passed by the learned trial Court is erroneous and deserves to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant prayed that the order impugned has been passed after remand by this Court in the revision petition filed by the complainant and the learned trial Court has rightly arrived at the conclusion as to commission of offence under Section 420, I.P.C. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner may very well be raised at the time of charge arguments before the trial Court. According to him, as per the admitted position of the case the petitioner is not owner of the disputed property which is sold by him under agreement to Pushpendra Singh Rathore. He has specifically stated that he himself is not owner of the property in question and he is authorised by his wife and brother to enter into any transaction in respect of the land in question. He has specifically stated that he himself is not owner of the property in question and he is authorised by his wife and brother to enter into any transaction in respect of the land in question. It is also contended that as per the statement of Pushpendra Singh Rathore recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. he has specifically stated that complainant and one Prakash Chandra came to him and they suggested him to purchase the said land from Mahesh Chandra and upon assurance by Mahesh Chandra on 20.7.1995 paid the consideration towards sale price. It is also stated by Pushpendra Singh in his statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. that upon assurance given by Mahesh Chandra petitioner, complainant Naresh Surana and Prakash Chandra asked him to purchase the land; meaning thereby, the petitioner Mahesh Chandra assured complainant Naresh Surana and Prakash Chandra that he is owner of the property, therefore, under his assurance, Pushpendra Singh Rathore purchased the said land under agreement with petitioner Mahesh Chandra Soni in which the complainant is one of the witnesses. Therefore, the day on which the agreement to sell was executed in favour of Pushpendra Singh Rathore by the petitioner, the assurance was given by the petitioner to the complainant that he is owner of the property and he can transfer the said land. It is also pointed out that in the agreement executed in favour of Pushpendra Singh Rathore, it is nowhere stated by him that he is authorised person of his wife and brother who are the registered owners of the land, therefore, at the initial stage, first Mahesh Chandra Soni cheated complainant Naresh Surana and insisted upon him to be witness to the sale-deed and, thereafter, when the said land was purchased by him from Pushpendra Singh he refused to execute the sale-deed. Thereafter upon enquiry, it has come to the knowledge of the complainant that, in fact, the land is not in the name of Mahesh Chandra Soni but the same is owned by his wife and brother. Thereafter upon enquiry, it has come to the knowledge of the complainant that, in fact, the land is not in the name of Mahesh Chandra Soni but the same is owned by his wife and brother. Thus from the initial stage he refused to execute the sale-deed in favour of Pushpendra Singh Rathore in pursuance of agreement to sell entered into with him and that agreement was well within the knowledge of the complainant being one of the witnesses to the agreement; and, upon assurance of Mahesh Chandra later on the said land was purchased by him under agreement with Pushpendra Singh Rathore. The said land was further sold under agreement to one Prakash Chandra by Narendra Surana; but, in the absence of registered sale-deed for which the petitioner was to execute the sale-deed, complainant is facing trial. In this view of the matter, the main reason of litigation is Mahesh Chandra Soni himself because at the initial stage he was to execute the sale-deed in favour of Pushpendra Singh Rathore. 7. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly taken cognizanee against the petitioner which does not require any interference by this Court. 8. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed having no force.Revision petition dismissed. *******