ORDER 1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 6.12.06, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 16/06, accepting the FR of the police after investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. Criminal Revision No. 143/07, preferred against the said order has also been rejected vide order dated 21.2.07 by 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore. 2. It is required to be noticed here that a private complaint was filed by the applicant under Section 467, 468 & 471 of the IPC. Along with the said complaint an application under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. was also filed, the application was rejected by order dated 19.9.05 and the complaint was also dismissed; however, against the said order a revision petition was preferred, which was decided by the Sessions Judge, Indore on 3.10.05 and the order of rejection of the application under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C., as well as of private complaint was set aside. Thereafter, the trial Court has directed to hold an investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C., thereupon the police authorities said that no offence congnizable as alleged in the private complaint found proven therefore, FR was sent, which was accepted by the trial Court, as per order dated 6.12.06. The trial Court while accepting the said order has observed that the document, sale-deed executed in favour of the complainant on 3.9.74 indicated that the original owner Sukhdevi Bai was not having possession over the land and after the death of her husband sale-deed was executed by her in favour of the petitioner; while another sale-deed got executed by non-applicants No.2 to 7 in favour of non-applicant No.1, because they were the legal representatives of Mahadeo as per judgment of High Court, on the basis of the sale-deed got executed by non-applicants No. 2 to 7, non-applicant No. 1 got mutated his name. Considering this aspect the Court has observed that it is a case having civil dispute, therefore, the FR submitted by the police authorities deserves to be accepted. The order passed by the Magistrate concerned has been affirmed by the revisional Court in toto. 3. Considering this aspect the Court has observed that it is a case having civil dispute, therefore, the FR submitted by the police authorities deserves to be accepted. The order passed by the Magistrate concerned has been affirmed by the revisional Court in toto. 3. Shri L.N. Soni, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has drawn my attention to the findings recorded by the Sessions Court in the earlier round of litigation when the private complaint filed by the applicant was rejected. He submits that the Sessions Court has recorded a finding prima facie case of cheating is made out, therefore, direction was issued that the application under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C., ought to have been allowed and the private complaint be restored. In view of those findings the acceptance of the FR is unsustainable. Shri Soni further submits that until and unless the finding as recorded by the Sessions Court has mated out being the investigation report, the Court cannot accept the FR ignoring those findings. Thus, acceptance of the FR is without due application of mind, therefore, the order impugned, passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the trial Court for passing appropriate order after due consideration of all these aspects. 4. On the other hand, Shri A.S. Rathor, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that he is merely a witness of a sale-deed executed in favour of non-applicant No.1 by non-applicants No.2 to 7. It is further argued by him that after passing the order by the Sessions Court in an earlier round of litigation and remitting back the matter to the police, investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C., was conducted wherein no cognizable offence was found against all the non-applicants, therefore, the FR was submitted, which has rightly been accepted by the Court. In such case interference by this Court is not warranted, because the order impugned is passed relying the subsequent investigation. In view of the said it is argued that the petition filed by the applicant may be ordered to be dismissed. 5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record it is undisputed that the private complaint initally filed by the applicant was dismissed by the trial Court. In view of the said it is argued that the petition filed by the applicant may be ordered to be dismissed. 5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record it is undisputed that the private complaint initally filed by the applicant was dismissed by the trial Court. Against the said order a revision was preferred before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court after going in to all the facts recorded a finding in paragraphs 4, 5 & 6, which is reproduced herein below: "4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant/complainant is the bona fide purchaser of the disputed land from the original owner Sukhdevi. This sale took place before the husband of the non-applicant No.2 Madanlal Hardya, who is attesting witness of the sale deed dated 25.7.1974. He is also the executor of the agreement of sale of the disputed land on behalf of the original owner Sukhdevi, therefore, the non-applicants No.2 to 9 had the knowledge of the concerned sale in favour of the applicant. Then, also the non-applicants No.2 to 9 with the intention of cheating resale of the disputed land in favour of the non-applicant No.1. Thus, on the basis of these allegations prima facie the case under Section 420 IPC is made out against the non-applicants and the trial Court has committed error in dismissing the applications filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as well as the entire complaint. 5. On perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant it appears to be reasonable and proper that at the time of taking cognizance the learned trial Court should not consider the proposed defence of the non-applicants/accused. The accused have full right and opportunity to put up their defence after their appearance in the Court. 6. Prima facie on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint the case under Section 420 IPC is made out for which the proper investigation is required by the police. 6. The order accepting the FR must reflect whether the findings recorded by the Sessions Court have come to an end in the investigation performed b the police on the basis of which the FR was submitted. 6. The order accepting the FR must reflect whether the findings recorded by the Sessions Court have come to an end in the investigation performed b the police on the basis of which the FR was submitted. The perusal of the order passed by the Magistrate concerned, it is not reflected that the findings recorded by the Sessions Court in an earlier round of litigation afore quoted has been discussed in the investigation or by the Court. The Court was of the opinion that Madanlal Hardia, executor of agreement to sell in favour of the applicant and also the attesting witness of the sale-deed executed having knowledge of execution of the sale-deed of petitioner. This execution of sale-deed by non-applicants No.2 to 7 to non-applicant No.1 is the act of cheating. The said finding is not even touched into either in the investigation report or by the Court concerned. However, without rebutting those finding FR cannot be accepted. In that view of the matter, I find much substance in the arguments of Shri Soni. 7. In view of above, this petition deserves to be allowed. The order passed by the trial Court accepting the FR dated 6.12.06, affirmed by revisional Court vide order dated 21.2.07 is without due application of mind, therefore, deserves to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the impugned orders passed by the Courts below are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court concerned to reconsider the FR submitted by the police in the light of the observations made hereinabove and to pass appropriate order, after giving due opportunity of hearing to both the parties.