JUDGMENT Mr. Gurdev Singh, J.:- Heard. 2. Petitioner, Harnek Singh, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No. 105 dated 23.9.2009 registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station Bhikhi, District Mansa(Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. 3. The facts are not disputed in this case. The land is dispute measuring 65 kanals 10 Marlas situated in village Maujo Khurd, District Mansa, was owned by Nazar Singh, Darshan Singh and Jaswant Kaur, who agreed to sell the same in favour of Harnek Singh, who further agreed to sell the same in favour of Balwinder Singh, complainant, and received a sum of Rs. 27 lacs as earnest money. As per that agreement dated 25.3.2009, the sale deed was to be executed and registered on 30.6.2009. However, Harnek Singh did not turn up in that office to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant. Thereafter, the above said FIR was got lodged by the complainant in which he described the present petitioner and others as habitual cheaters. No prayer was made in the application, on the basis of which the FIR was recorded, that the criminal proceedings be initiated against the petitioner and others. The prayer made in the application is reproduced below:- “We pray to you that as per the agreement above land be got registered or double of the amount of earnest money given by us be returned back to us.” 4. The simple and only question arises for determination is, whether any criminal offence is made out from the contents of this FIR. It cannot be inferred therefrom that there was any such dishonest intention at the time, the petitioner executed the agreement to sell in favour of the complainant. At no stage the complainant came up with the contention that there was such dishonest intention. Admittedly, the land was not owned by Harnek Singh when he executed the agreement and he had executed the same on the ground that there was an agreement to sell in his favour which had been executed by the original owners. That fact was very much in the knowledge of the complainant. He himself narrated in the application/FIR that the he had entered into an agreement with the petitioner after obtaining the consent of the original owners. That fact was very much in the knowledge of the complainant. He himself narrated in the application/FIR that the he had entered into an agreement with the petitioner after obtaining the consent of the original owners. When there was no such dishonest intention at the very inception, it cannot be said that there was any such mens rea on the party of the petitioner or that he was having dishonest intention to cheat the petitioner. From the contents of the FIR, only a civil wrong is made out. When such is the position, the FIR and the subsequent proceedings are ordered to be quashed. Petition is disposed of accordingly. --------------