Yogendra Kumar Sangal, J.:- This is an application under Section 482 CrPC moved by the petitioners to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1323/2008 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC State vs. Smt. Vineeta Maurya & Ors. Pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-III, Lucknow along with order dated 20.09.2008 and 20.02.2009 contained in Annexure-1 and Annexure-2 respectively of the petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged by the respondent No. 3 Rajesh Bahadur Singh against the petitioners and other with the averments that Smt. Vineeta Maurya petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 entered in an agreement to sale and purchase of the property belonging to Smt. Vineeta Maurya for a sum of Rs. 20 lacs. Out of that Rs. 7 lacs were paid as an advance money to petitioner No. 1 by the respondent No. 3 and agreement to sale was executed and registered on 13.11.2006. As the property was already mortgaged for a loan of Rs. 15,91,334/- with the State Bank of India, Charbagh Branch, Lucknow, petitioner No. 1 assured that within two months the amount of loan will be cleared. A school was also running in the property in dispute. It was also assured by the petitioner No. 1 to the respondent No. 3 that she will inform him within two months after clearing the loan and at the same time he may get executed the sale-deed in his favour or any other person to whom he nominate after paying the rest amount and possession of the property will be delivered to him at that time. Severally he requested to the petitioners who are husband and wife to clear the loan of the Bank and to execute the sale-deed in his favour according to the terms and conditions of the deed, but neither she had cleared the loan of the bank nor executed the sale-deed in his favour. On 03.05.2008, he again approached Smt. Vineeta Maurya to execute the sale-deed, but again a deed was executed by her on that date that either she will return the advance money to the respondent No. 3 by 05.07.2008 or will execute the sale-deed in his favour but till the date nothing was done. On 03.05.2008, he again approached Smt. Vineeta Maurya to execute the sale-deed, but again a deed was executed by her on that date that either she will return the advance money to the respondent No. 3 by 05.07.2008 or will execute the sale-deed in his favour but till the date nothing was done. When on 22.07.2008 at about 4.00 P.M. along with Sunil Kumar when he went to the house of Smt. Vineeta Maurya and inquired from her in the matter, her husband and one Asif with two unknown persons threatened him and stated that neither they will execute the sale-deed nor they will return his money. When he pressed for execution of the sale-deed or to return the money, they badly abused him and beaten him with kicks and fists. A case was registered against both the petitioners including one Asif and two unknown persons. On the report investigation in the matter was started and completing the same, charge-sheet was submitted against both the accused persons/petitioners for trial for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC only. During the course of investigation, a Writ Petition No. 7115 (M/B) of 2008 was filed before this Court. This Court in the writ matter had directed vide order dated 13.08.2008 that till further orders of the court or submission of the charge-sheet whichever is earlier, petitioners will not be arrested. It is said that just after passing this order in writ petition under the collusion of the respondent No. 3, police has submitted that charge-sheet in the matter and learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on the same. When petitioners came to know that non-bailable warrants have been issued against them by the court in the matter and complainant is pressing to the court of learned Magistrate for the proceedings under Section 82 and 83 CrPC against them, this application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed for the relief as said above challenging summoning order and also issuance of order of non-bailable warrant as well as proceedings under Section 82 and 83 CrPC saying that summons were not served on them and matter between the parties relates to civil dispute, so criminal proceedings in the matter are not permissible under law and only to harass and humiliate the petitioners in connivance of police attempt is made to convert it into criminal offence. Learned AGA supported the submission of charge-sheet in the matter saying that criminal remedy is not barred in facts and circumstances of case as knowingly petitioners are avoiding their appearance in court concerned or delaying disposal of case, correctly non-bailable warrant was issued. Undisputedly, petitioners are husband and wife. It is also admitted to them that petitioner No. 1 entered in agreement to sale of her property with respondent No. 3 and a deed agreement to sale was executed and registered on 13.11.2006. Rs. 7 lacs were paid to the petitioner No. 1 by the respondent No. 3 as an advance money for the same. A school was running in the property in dispute and a loan of Rs. 15,91,334/- was on the petitioner of State Bank of India against the same property in dispute was mortgaged with the bank. It was also agreed between the parties as mentioned in the agreement that petitioners will get clear the loan within two months and she will inform to the respondent No. 3 in this regard, so that he may get executed the sale-deed and get possession. Two months time was fixed for the same. Whether petitioner had cleared the loan of State Bank of India and she was ever ready and willing to execute the sale-deed as per terms and conditions of the agreement and to deliver the possession, it is not clear from the contents of the petition and affidavit filed on her behalf. As per terms and conditions of the agreement (copy of the same annexed with the petition) sale consideration was fixed Rs. 20 lacs and admittedly Rs. 7 lacs were already paid to the petitioners as an advance money. Rest sale consideration was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale-deed. A theory is developed through this petition on behalf of the petitioners that although agreed sale consideration was Rs. 65 lacs, only to save the stamp duty on the request of respondent No. 3, this was shown Rs. 20 lacs in the agreement to sale and respondent No. 3 was not paying balance money as agreed. This shows that as per his own case petitioners joined the hand of respondent No. 3 in his this misdeed and agreed to deceive and cause loss of stamp duty to the State Govt. and also to play fraud on the authorities of the Govt. This shows that as per his own case petitioners joined the hand of respondent No. 3 in his this misdeed and agreed to deceive and cause loss of stamp duty to the State Govt. and also to play fraud on the authorities of the Govt. by executing this deed showing the less value of the property in dispute. Very important fact is that condition No. 1 of the agreement to sale is that cost of the property given in the deed will neither increased nor decreased. If this would have been the position that agreed cost was Rs. 65 lacs, she will sign this deed where cost of the property was shown as Rs. 20 lacs only with the above conditions, it is not believable at this stage of the case. Now record clearly shows that petitioners themselves are not ready to execute the sale-deed in the light of terms and conditions settled between parties under this agreement which is in the shape of written deed and registered. Learned AGA argued record shows that as since very beginning petitioners were not intending to sell the property and only to deceive the respondent No. 3, by inducing respondent No. 3, they have shown their willingness for selling the same only to receive the huge amount of Rs. 7 lacs from the respondent No. 3 and after receiving the same with malafide intention, this story of value of property of Rs. 65 lacs was developed with the help of legal mind to avoid execution of sale-deed or usurp the advance money. This argument cannot be said without force at this stage of the case. As per case of the petitioner, respondent No. 3 was agreed to get cancelled the agreement to sale subject to this condition that Rs. 7 lacs paid to her as advance money are returned for which petitioners were agreed and Rs. 85,000/- were already paid to the respondent No. 3 by two account payee cheques in the year 2007 and those cheques were encashed by him. It appears correct that later on respondent No. 3 agreed as such and another deed on 03.05.2008 was executed in this regard (as per FIR case) and a copy of the same was also filed by the petitioners but from its perusal, it reveals that on 03.05.2008, petitioner had admitted her liability of Rs. 7 lacs. If Rs. It appears correct that later on respondent No. 3 agreed as such and another deed on 03.05.2008 was executed in this regard (as per FIR case) and a copy of the same was also filed by the petitioners but from its perusal, it reveals that on 03.05.2008, petitioner had admitted her liability of Rs. 7 lacs. If Rs. 85,000/- would have been paid in the year 2007, in May 2008 again she will admit liability to return Rs. 7 lacs, it is not acceptable. As per this new agreement, 05.07.2008 date was fixed to return Rs. 7 lacs but nowhere said by the petitioners that this whole amount has been paid till the date. It is again said in the affidavit dated 27.07.2010 on behalf of the petitioners that Rs. 5 lacs more are paid but no date, time and place of payment has been given in this affidavit. It is also to be seen that without any receipt this amount of Rs. 5 lacs will be paid in cash to the respondent No. 3 when already FIR has been lodged against the petitioners and this petition is pending in this court and relation between the parties were not normal. This all shows that petitioners are not coming with clean hands before this Court stating correct facts and the facts of the case are showing that since very beginning petitioners' intention was not bonafide and their intention to deceive the respondent No. 3 since very beginning cannot be ruled out at this stage and possibility also cannot be ruled out that only to deceive the respondent No. 3, this all was done by them and they instigated to the respondent No. 3 to pay Rs. 7 lacs under the garb of agreement to sell. Argument was raised on behalf of the petitioners that dispute between the parties is of civil nature and in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indra Mohan Goswami vs. State of Uttrakhand reported in 2008 (1) JIC 737 criminal proceedings are not maintainable. Facts of the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court are totally different from the facts of the present case. It was found by the Hon'ble Apex Court that controversy between the parties was purely of civil nature and civil suit already filed and pending for adjudication. Facts of the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court are totally different from the facts of the present case. It was found by the Hon'ble Apex Court that controversy between the parties was purely of civil nature and civil suit already filed and pending for adjudication. At this stage of the matter only prima-facie case is to be seen to take cognizance in the matter. The misdeeds of petitioners and facts stated by the respondent No. 3 in FIR and also facts available on record are sufficient to put accused petitioners on trial. From the facts and acts if civil and criminal liability both arises, criminal complaint/FIR is not barred. Accused petitioners may have their own defence regarding the case of the respondent No. 3 but that can be seen at proper time and proper stage of the case when evidence in defence is adduced. Allegations of FIR constitute an offence as alleged by the complainant and after investigation in the matter charge-sheet has already been submitted by the investigating officer. After seeing ingredients of the offence under Section 406 and 420 IPC, learned Magistrate has already taken cognizance in the matter. Respondent No. 3 is suffering from the acts of the petitioners. Petitioners themselves are not complying the terms and conditions of the agreement and they have committed criminal breach of trust. Veracity of the fact as alleged by the petitioners can only be ascertained on the basis of the evidence to be adduced in the case. It is established law that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Authority of the court exists for advancement justice to both the parties of the case. If any abuse of process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court only then the court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in the matter. Whether agreed costs of the property in dispute was Rs. 65 lacs or Rs. 20 lacs as mentioned in the agreement to sale and whether there was no fraudulent intention of the petitioners in this regard to deceive respondent can only be seen now after the evidence of the parties in the matter. In these circumstances, no interference by this Court is required in this regard in the matter. 65 lacs or Rs. 20 lacs as mentioned in the agreement to sale and whether there was no fraudulent intention of the petitioners in this regard to deceive respondent can only be seen now after the evidence of the parties in the matter. In these circumstances, no interference by this Court is required in this regard in the matter. As regards for issuance of non-bailable warrant, record shows that accused petitioners have sufficient knowledge of pendency of the case against them. On their behalf issuance of process under Section 82 and 83 CrPC was refused by the court of learned Magistrate. Even then without any stay order in their favour they were not appearing before the trial court. One accused petitioner already arrested and remained in jail for 20 days as per their own case in the petition. They are husband and wife even then record shows petitioner No. 2 is not appearing before the trial court and using the process of the court malafidely. No good ground to quash the steps taken by the trial court for appearance of the petitioners in the matter. Accordingly, petition under Section 482 has no force and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, Petition is hereby dismissed.