RAVINDRA SINGH, J. This appli cation has been filed by the applicant M/s. Delhi Auto & General Finance (P) Ltd. , Sa gar Apartment through Sri G. Sagar Suri, Chhatar Singh and P. J. John with a prayer to quash the charge- sheet of case Crime No. 1004 of 2007 under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I. P. C. , P. S. Indrapuram, Dis trict Ghaziabad pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, J. D. , Ghaziabad vide Criminal Case No. 7182 of 2008. 2. The facts in brief of this case are that the application under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. has been moved by Jagser Singh authorized representative of M/s. U. K. Pants India (P) Ltd. , the same was allowed on 10. 10. 2007 by learned C. J. M. , Ghaziabad in Misc. Application No. 1682 of 2007 and officer in-charge of P. S. Indrapuram was directed to register the case and investigate the same. In pursuance of the order dated 10. 10. 2007 the FIR in case Crime No. 1064 of 2007 has been registered at P. S. Indrapu ram on 15. 11. 2007. 3. It is alleged in FIR that applicants have prepared lay out plan for construction a colony in Khasra No. 520 of Village Mohaddinpur. The lay out plan was shown by the applicant No. 1 Sri G. Sagar Suri. The company M/s. U. K. Pants India Ltd. pur chased some plots through registered sale deed on 30. 12. 1999 as Plots No. 86 area 239. 26 square metre at the cost of Rs. 3,59,000/-, Plot No. 86-A and 87-A area 239. 26 square metre at the cost of Rs. 3,59,000/-, Plot No. 93-A area 270. 214 square metre at the cost of Rs. 4,6,000/-and Plot No. 93-B area 270 square metre at the cost of Rs. 4,6,000/ -. All the above mentioned plots were in Khasra No. 520 of Village Mohaddinpur Kanavani. At the time of the sale of the above mentioned plots it was assured by the applicants that all the plots will be developed by the com pany after execution of the sale deed and handing over the possession but the com pany of the applicants did not make any development. On 28. 7. At the time of the sale of the above mentioned plots it was assured by the applicants that all the plots will be developed by the com pany after execution of the sale deed and handing over the possession but the com pany of the applicants did not make any development. On 28. 7. 2007 some persons came to the O. P. No. 3 who disclosed their identity as representative of Nipur Builders they stated that the owners of M/s. Delhi Auto and General Finance (P) Ltd. had sold the land in which the O. P. No. 3 was working. The land was same which was already sold by the applicants to the com pany of O. P. No. 3. The company of O. P. No. 3 has same work on the land in dispute and the name has been entered into reve nue record also. The applicants have committed cheating on the company of O. P. No. 3 by way of selling the same land to Nipur Builders thereafter the applicants and representative of M/s. Nipur Builders were extending the threat to the represen tative of the Company of O. P. No. 3. The applicants have sold the road shown in the lay out plan to M/s. Nipur Builders. After lodging the FIR the matter was investigated and I. O. submitted the charge-sheet dated 15. 12. 2007 in the Court of learned C. J. M. , Ghaziabad who taken the cognizance on 1. 5. 2008. Being aggrieved from the charge-sheet submitted against the applicants the present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the same. 4. Heard Sri G. S. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Hari Lal Pandey, learned Counsel for the applicants, learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. and Sri Siddhartha Srivastava, learned Counsel for O. P. No. 3. 5. It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicants that applicants Com pany owned a liability of Ganga Automo biles Ltd. which has been under liquidation concerning with the company of O. P. No. 3, only against the said liability the applicants Company discharged from this trust due to O. P. No. 3 by giving plots in ques tion with the consent of O. P. No. 3. At the time of the execution of the sale deed the O. P. No. 3 was given possession of 2000 plots since then they are in possession but some of the land having the area of 1298. 02 square metre has been sold to M/s. Nipur Builders, its details are given in Khasra No. 520 which is process was adopted un der the scheme of approval by G. D. A. at the time of execution of sale deed. The O. P. No. 3 was introduced and duly apprised that the Company deposited the GDA ex ternal development charges as per the scheme but the company railed to deposit the external development charges to the GDA which resulted in cancellation of the approval of GDA. The O. P. No. 3 moved the application under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. having the false and frivolous allegations in the Court of learned C. J. M. Ghaziabad. A preliminary enquiry was done in which it was found that the complaint was not disclosing any offence. The applicants had stated that company had transferred the right of the ownership to O. P. No. 3. There was no question of any cheating or fabrica tion of any document even then the learned C. J. M. , Ghaziabad allowed the application under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. and directed the officer in-charge of the police station concerned to register the case and investi gate the same vide order dated 10. 10. 2007, it was illegal order. During investigation also the I. O. has not collected any cogent evidence constituting any offence for the purpose of submitting the charge-sheet even then the charge-sheet has been sub mitted on which the learned C. J. M. Ghaz iabad has taken the cognizance without applying the judicial mind. 6. It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicants that applicants are very respectable persons. The applicant No. 1 is old man age about 82 years suffering from various diseases. The purpose of fil ing of the complaint is only to disrepute the applicants and to black mail the applicants by way of putting them on harassment. The applicant No. 2 remained in the office of aforesaid company till December 1999, he resigned from the company in the months of January 2000. The applicant No. 3 was not named in FIR but he has also been charge-sheeted. The applicant No. 2 remained in the office of aforesaid company till December 1999, he resigned from the company in the months of January 2000. The applicant No. 3 was not named in FIR but he has also been charge-sheeted. Even on the basis of the allegations made against the applicant no offence of cheating or forgery is made out. The allegations made against the applicants are purely of civil in nature. Its remedy is available in the civil records. During inves tigation the arrest of the applicants was stayed by this Court vide order dated 30. 11. 2007 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 19736 of 2007. The I. O. has not col lected any evidence to show that the land which was already sold to the O. P. No. 3 has again been sold to M/s. Nipur Build ers, therefore, the charge-sheet submitted against the applicants may be quashed. 7. In reply of the above contention it is submitted by earned A. G. A. and Counsel for O. P. No. 3 that on the basis of the alle gations made against the applicants prima facie offence of cheating or forgery is made out because the applicants have sold the same land to M/s. Nipur Builders which was already sold to the company of O. P. No. 3. The applicants have again sold the land which was already sold to O. P. No. 3 and possession was handed over. The ap plicants were no right to sold the land which was already sold to O. P. No. 3. During investigation I. O. has collected the evidence and there is documentary evi dence in support of the allegation made against the applicants. During investigation the statement of Dinesh Mishra, Sub Regis trar was recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. who stated that in his presence the sale deed dated 30. 12. 1999 were executed by applicant No. 1 in favour of O. P. No. 3. thereafter the statement of D. S. Rathore, Sub Registrar has been recorded who stated that 8500 square yard land was sold by applicant No. 1 M/s. Nipur Builders on 9. 11. 2006. The I. O. has not committed any error in submitting the charge-sheet. The allegations made against the applicants are not of civil in nature but are of purely criminal in nature but applicants have committed the alleged offence intention ally. 11. 2006. The I. O. has not committed any error in submitting the charge-sheet. The allegations made against the applicants are not of civil in nature but are of purely criminal in nature but applicants have committed the alleged offence intention ally. The learned C. J. M. concerned has not committed any error in taking the cogni zance on the basis of the material collected by the I. O. The present application is de void of merit and the same may be dis missed. 8. Considering the submission made by learned Counsel for the applicants, learned A. G. A. , learned Counsel for O. P. No. 3 and from the perusal of record it ap pears that on the basis of the allegations made against the applicants prima facie offence under sections. 420, 467, 468 and 471 I. P. C. is made out. The allegations are of such nature which shows that the appli cants have committed the offence of cheating and forgery. The fabric of the case is purely of the criminal in nature, it does not appear that the allegations made against the applicants are purely of civil in nature. The I. O. has not committed any illegality in submitting the charge-sheet and the learned C. J. M. , Ghaziabad has also not committed any error in taking the cog nizance because the I. O. has collected the evidence to show that applicants have sold the same land by way of executing the sale deed in favour of M/s. Nipur Builders which was already sold to O. P. No. 3 by way of executing the sale deeds even the possession of the same and was handed over to O. P. No. 3. The present application is devoid of merits and there is no ground for quashing the charge-sheet submitted by the I. O. against the applicant, therefore, the prayer for quashing the charge- sheet of above mentioned case submitted against the applicant is refused. 9. However, considering the old age of the applicant No. 1 and other circum stances of the case it is directed that appli cants shall appear before the Court con cerned within 30 days from today, till then bailable warrant/nbw, if any, issued against the applicants shall be kept in abeyance. 9. However, considering the old age of the applicant No. 1 and other circum stances of the case it is directed that appli cants shall appear before the Court con cerned within 30 days from today, till then bailable warrant/nbw, if any, issued against the applicants shall be kept in abeyance. In case they apply for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of on the same day by the Courts below thereafter in case the applicants move discharge appli cation before the Court concerned, the same may be heard and disposed of in ac cordance with the provisions of law. With the above directions, this appli cation is finally disposed of. Application Disposed Of. .